President Trump becomes first US president to cross the DMZ in Korea, invites Kim Jong Un to the White House.

President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un after crossing the DMZ. The Hill/Getty.

President Trump has become the first US president to cross the DMZ in Korea and has invited North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to the White House. The Hill. Trump and Kim shook hands over the DMZ and then the President crossed into North Korea. The two men then met for 45 minutes and discussed another summit to relieve tensions over North Korea's nuclear program. After the failed Singapore summit, relations had cooled. However, Kim Jong Un had sent President Trump a "wonderful letter" which warmed things up again. Trump had tweeted out that he had wanted to meet with Kim while he was in the region and Kim quickly agreed. 

After some very important meetings, including my meeting with President Xi of China, I will be leaving Japan for South Korea (with President Moon). While there, if Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 28, 2019

My Comment:

This is largely a historical footnote as the real work was happening behind the scenes. President Trump crossing into North Korea is mostly about showing how much the relationship between the two countries has changed. It's a huge step but it's mostly a symbolic one. The change here is that the stalled nuclear talks are back on and are apparently doing well enough to risk embarrassment by all sides if it doesn't work out. 

The real work is going to happen at the Washington summit which will hopefully happen soon. There is much to discuss with sanctions and North Korea's nuclear program the main sticking points. Hopefully this time the President and Kim Jong Un can get it done. Doing so would finally end one of the largest tinder boxes in the world today and would lead to better outcomes for both North Korea and the rest of the world. It would be a huge boon for the suffering people of North Korea who are always having problems with food and poverty. 

I do have to say that it's pretty amazing that President Trump was able to do this. It seems like just a little while ago Vice President Pence was staring daggers over the DMZ and now President Trump is just walking across like it's no big deal. Such a change in so little time. 

I was expecting some progress to be made after I heard the announcement about the "wonderful letter" President Trump had received for his birthday from Kim Jong Un. I thought then that things would probably pick up again and that talks would probably start up. Going to the DMZ wasn't what I was expecting but it is good that things are back on track. 

If a nuclear deal does happen it would probably serve as an example of the world's other major hotspot, Iran. North Korea has been a bigger enemy than they have been but if they can come to the table Iran can as well. Backing out of Obama's stupid nuclear deal hurts things a great deal but perhaps this meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un can convince the Iranians to play ball. 

Still, it may be too early to celebrate. There is still much work to do and a million and one things that can go wrong between now and a nuclear deal. Remember, the Singapore summit fell apart at the last minute so there is every chance that this deal could as well. But hopefully this time around will be different and we will no longer need to worry about a nuclear North Korea. 

Antifa attacks journalist and fight "Proud Boys" in Portland Oregon.

Protesters in Portland. AP.

Chaos in Portland Oregon as Antifa fights Proud Boys in the streets. ABC News. Three rallies had been planned for Saturday but when the groups met there was violence. It is unclear how many people were injured or how many arrests were made. A journalist for Quillette, Andy Ngo, was attacked by the group and had to be hospitalized. He was robbed, egged and "milkshaked" but the milkshake contained quicklime or quick drying cement which resulted in chemical burns. Police were also attacked as well. 

My Comment:

I have to be careful what I say when the subject of antifa comes up. I have gotten in trouble with adsense for posting videos that show how violent they are and criticizing them. Video of this incident is widely available so if you want to see it you can look it up. 

This seems like a situation made worse by the police response. Portland's government is notoriously lax when it comes to confronting antifa and more should have been done to prevent them and the Proud Boys from coming into contact with each other. 

Though I am obviously not a fan of antifa I don't think what the Proud Boys are doing is productive either. It seems likely they were there to pick a fight and though doing so might make for compelling video it doesn't really help things. Antifa's popularity drops when they attack cops and destroy businesses, not when they are fighting in the streets. 

As for the attack on journalist Andy Ngo, it's fairly horrible. Ngo got pretty severely injured and seems to have suffered chemical burns from getting milkshaked. He was also robbed and beaten as well. I am guessing antifa figured out who he was and who he wrote for and decided to beat him up (Quillette is a right wing outlet). For all the complaints about the right threatening journalists I can't remember any incidents as severe as what antifa did here. 

The incident also shows why "milkshaking" should be taken seriously. The media has essentially treated it as a joke and as far as assaults go it's more annoying than anything. But this case proves that if you are close enough to hit someone with a milkshake you are close enough to severely harm them. Plus they could do what these people did and line a seemingly harmless milkshake with caustic or acidic chemicals and burn people. 

The good news is that antifa has lost much of their relevance, along with Black Lives Matter. Once President Trump got elected the rate of attacks and riots have essentially dropped to zero. I'm not sure why that is as you would think that they would have more to protest now but my guess is a lot of their funding got cut off after the election.  

My reaction to part two of the Democratic Debate.

The candidates all raising their hands when asked if they would provide health care for illegal aliens. NBC News.

As you may know, I watched the Democrats debate last night and I have a lot to say. I had watched the 1st part of the debate and if anything this debate was even worse in quality than the last one. It was an absolute mess and even in terms of behavior it was worse. The only thing that was better was the fact that the NBC crew had fewer technical issues. 

The absolute worst moment was when every candidate on stage said they would give illegal aliens free health care. There wasn't one person on the stage that would say that the idea was crazy. Nobody said how expensive it would be. And nobody said how it would create incentives for every sick person across the globe to enter the country illegally. Everyone just raised their hands. 

The rest of the night wasn't much better. There was very little talk about how these candidates would help Americans but there was a lot about how the Democrats would help illegal aliens, ban firearms and generally go after Republicans including President Trump. 

As far as peformance goes I have a lot to say. The biggest news is how terrible Joe Biden did. He was on the defensive all night and didn't have good answers for the attacks launched at him. Even Eric "nuke them" Swalwell was able to get his goat by saying that the Democratic Party needs to pass the torch to younger people. 

But it was Kamala Harris that blew Biden away. She essentially called him a racist and a friend of segregationists. I'm not fan of Joe Biden but even I admit that argument is pretty stupid. Why would Barack Obama, the first black president, have an anti-black racist as his VP? However, instead of pointing that out, Biden totally fumbled the question and couldn't fight back. It put him on the defensive and hurt him in the polling already.

Other than that exchange which I have to admit was effective, Kamala Harris wasn't very impressive. She only seems to have one tactic, tell some heartstring pulling story or hypothetical and then get super outraged about something that probably didn't even happen. She also played the race card several times which will probably play well in the Democratic Primaries but will destroy any chance she has of being elected. 

Bernie Sanders didn't have a great night either. In the last debates he stood out because his platform was new and exciting. But now the Democrats have basically stole the economic parts of it and he doesn't really stand out anymore. The fact that he is extremely loud and belligerent didn't help things. 

To his eternal shame Sanders also surrendered to the anti-gun extremist Eric Swalwell. Swalwell, famous for saying he would nuke gun owners if they tried to resist a gun confiscation scheme on Twitter, backed Sanders into a corner and forced him to agree that he would support a gun "buyback" confiscation scheme. I have said from the start that Swalwell's main goal appeared to be to push the Democrats left on the issue and it looks like he succeeded. 

The most annoying person was Kristen Gillibrand by far. Her policy wasn't that different than anyone else but she was the most shrill person there. Worst of all, she never shut up, constantly interrupting people. It was hugely annoying and made me think she was a joke. 

The only person I thought had a good night was Peter Buttgieg. I hated his policy but his behavior was a lot better than everyone else. He didn't interrupt people and he spoke well. He got attacked hard for the police shooting in his town but I think he handled the question a lot better than the other candidates when they got attacked. 

A lot of eyes were on Andrew Yang. Yang and his universal basic income scheme has made waves for months now and even gained a probably astro-turfed following on 4chan's /pol/ board. Yang, however, spoke hardly at all and did very little with the words he was allowed. He even botched his 1st question, a gimme about his UBI plan and he totally botched it. I don't see him surviving to the next debate 

The most surprising person was Marianne Williamson. How she got on that stage is anyone's guess but she made the most of it by saying just crazy things. Hilariously New York Magazine has a quiz that has her quotes matched up with Metal Gear Solid ones and it's crazy how much she sounds like she's from a Kojima game (I got 10 out 15). Some of her whoppers from last night included saying the first thing she would do after being inaugurated would be to call the Prime Minster of New Zealand and saying she would harness love for political purposes. She's nuts but I hope she sticks around just for the meme value. 

I wasn't sure how to react to the debates to be perfectly honest. On the one hand I was horrified at the possibility of one of the twenty candidates winning the presidency. The only point I agreed with for the entire two nights was Elizabeth Warren breaking up the big tech companies. The rest of it was all stuff I disagreed with. This is such a huge departure from 2016 when even candidates I hated, like Hillary Clinton, occasionally said something I agreed with. Not so now. If any of these candidates are elected this country will head to very dark place.

On the other hand, these candidates were so over the top awful that I can't honestly see any of them beating Donald Trump. That was always going to be a longshot in the first place as Trump has the economy working for him and the natural advantage of incumbency. But these people? They have nothing to offer normal Americans who they desperately need to try and defeat President Trump. 

Editor's Note: Debate night part 2 and reaction to part 1

Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker react to Robert Francis O'Rourke. MSNBC.

Once again the Democratic candidates are going to debate and once again I am going to live tweet through at least most of it. Last night was tough to get through as the candidates were all spouting things I completely disagree with. Tonight I plan on live tweeting again and you can find my Twitter account here and my Gab.Ai account here.

As for last night, it was a total disaster for pretty much everyone. NBC probably was the worst as they had massive technical problems, which was the only moment of humor in the whole night. Their moderation was mixed with the first group of three being less biased and horrible than Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd. But you could tell that not only were they biased in favor of Elizabeth Warren they were also all in on identity politics.

One of the more frustrating things was all the candidates speaking in Spanish. I know that the debate was also broadcast on Telumundo and at least one of the candidates, Julian Casto, is Hispanic, but it was still annoying. Without speaking Spanish I had no idea what they were saying, which kind of defeats the purpose of listening to them.

I generally disliked all of the candidates. Tulsi Gabbard made the most sense as she is a foreign policy wonk and I agree with her non-interventionism, but other than that she's just as crazy as the rest supporting things like medicare for all and gun control. There was one moment where I did say out loud, "I agree with this", and that was when Elizabeth Warren said she would break up big tech companies. I mean, I didn't agree with her reasoning but I do think it would be better for the country if there was more competition.

There were some just insane moments, with the biggest being Julian Castro saying he supports abortion for transgender people. Given that bottom surgery and hormones make pregancy difficult to impossible for female to male patients and obviously male to female can never get pregnant, it was an insane statement that makes no sense unless you are signalling to people that you support LGBT's to the point that not even objective reality matters anymore.

As for winners and losers, I am not so sure. Robert Francis "Beto" (ugh) O'Rourke had a rough night with the other candidates beating him up quite a bit. He also got a lot of flak for his Hispanic pandering. He's a rich Irish dude, not Hispanic at all, and his speaking Spanish seems like a desperate plan to get attention from the Hispanic community. I predict that it doesn't work out for him.

Tulsi Gabbard had a good night, not so much for what she said but because she won most of the online polls and search engine searches. The media is, of course, blaming Reddit and 4chan for this but the truth of the matter is that Gabbard's anti-intervention policy is popular across the board. I think she's the one candidate that could give President Trump trouble, especially if the Iran situation blows up.

Julian Castro had a big night but mostly for bad reasons. The media doesn't like to mention the transgender abortion gaffe but my gut tells me that most people were searching him to make fun of him. Cory Booker dominated the talk time but didn't do too much with it and stupidly said that he hears gunfire in his neighborhood all the time. And Elizabeth Warren had a strong first half of the debate but faded in the second.

I do have to say that the current 2020 clown car is a lot worse than any of the five people that ran last time (with Bernie Sanders still being a question mark). I'm on record as saying I hate Hillary Clinton but in comparison with her 2016 run she was downright reasonable compared to what I heard last night. And there is no Jim Webb candidate this time around. There was very little in the way of pushback for the Democrat's most unpopular ideas. Tim Ryan, who also got destroyed by Tulsi Gabbard for claiming the Taliban did 9/11, sort of said that the Democrats ideas weren't popular in flyover country, but everything else I heard from him was pretty much party line identity politics and gun control.

Finally, I expect more of the same tonight. We do have the advantage of having some of the biggest names including Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and frontrunner Joe Biden debating. We also have Andrew Yang with his Universal Basic Income idea and the ever reprehensible Eric "Nuke gun owners" Swalwell debating so there might be some more fireworks. Either way, I will again have to resist the urge to throw things at my TV and avoiding getting banned on Twitter.

Reddit censors Pro-Trump /The_Donald subreddit.

File photo. Reuters.

Reddit has censored the pro-Trump subreddit /The_Donald after allegations of violence against police. Reuters. The site has not been banned entirely, but users will be warned that the sub is quarantined if they visit it. Quarantined subreddits are not found in searches or recommendations. Reddit administrators said that the sub had broken rules in regards to threats in the aftermath of the Oregon standoff between the GOP and the Democratic governor where the governor said she would arrest Republican lawmakers. 

The_Donald can be found here.

My Comment:

Huge political censorship on Reddit, one of the most famous liberal circle jerks on the internet. The_Donald is one of the few subreddits were conservatives are even allowed to openly post and I don't think it is surprising that Reddit is moving to censor them. 

As a quick disclaimer, I don't use Reddit and I don't have an account there but I do occasionally visit The_Donald. I've long been opposed to Reddit's behavior and generally hate the way it is set up, but when I do go there it's only to a few subreddits and The_Donald is one of them.

The_Donald has always had problems with being attacked by Reddit admins. The CEO of Reddit, Steve Huffman, even went so far to edit users posts on The_Donald which were critical of him and the way Reddit was being run. This was a huge deal back when it happened and it shows how biased Reddit is if even their CEO is editing random users posts. 

That incident also makes any claims against The_Donald a lot less easier to believe. It has already been shown that Reddit's administrators will go so far as editing people's posts in an effort to discredit The_Donald. Indeed, I haven't seen any actual evidence that any violent content was posted. Usually when something like this happens there will be screenshots of the violating posts but so far I haven't seen anything. It is very possible that nothing was posted at all that broke the rules or that if something was it was posted by someone who had a problem with The_Donald in the first place. 

Something has to be done about tech censorship of conservatives. The_Donald was one of the most important pro-Trump places on the internet and I think the played a role in getting President Trump elected. Quarantining it will ensure that less people visit the site and fewer people may be convinced to vote for President Trump in the first place. 

Reddit's behavior, along with the behavior of Twitter, Facebook and Google is an existential threat to both President Trump and Republicans. If all places where you can talk about politics are places where Republicans can't post, how on earth are they going to reach voters? How can they win any elections at all if their supporters are kicked out of polite society just for supporting them?

Unfortunately, the GOP seems to be asleep on this threat. They have done little to nothing to counter tech censorship. The only thing that might do some good are the antitrust investigations but those take times and it could cost us the 2020 races. I already think that tech censorship and interference probably cost the GOP the house in 2018 and the problem is only going to get worse in time. 

As for the underlying situation that started this whole mess in the first place, I can't believe the hypocrisy here. Generally speaking, all kinds of anti-police rhetoric, including threats against the police, are allowed on Reddit. I mean, they host Black Lives Matter, a group that was founded as a way to threaten and encourage violence against the police. A quick perusal of that subreddit shows many threats against cops. They aren't kicked off or quarantined in the least. I'm not saying they should be, I don't think any subreddits should be banned unless they are doing something illegal consistently, but I did want to point out how hypocritical they are being. 

I would also say that there is a huge difference between hating cops because they are cops and advocating self defense against an unlawful and tyrannical attempt to push legislation through. The Oregon situation, which I haven't talked about because I was afraid of Google doing to same thing to this blog as Reddit did to The_Donald, is a situation where the lines aren't anywhere near as clear when it comes to resisting arrest with force. Also, threats, in order to be illegal, have to have a reasonable chance of being taken serious before it becomes a crime. Nobody is going to take a random threat on Reddit seriously even assuming that any threats actually occurred. 

Finally, the timing of this is very suspicious as well. As you may know tonight is the first Democratic debates which figures to be a day where there would be much more traffic on The_Donald in the first place. Shutting off the subreddit today, of all days, suggests much more is going on here. I wish that there would be an investigation to figure out of Reddit is taking money from the Democrats but I'm not holding my breath that anything will happen... 

Editor's note: Democratic Debate.

Just as a reminder, I will be live tweeting the Democratic Debate tonight and tomorrow. The debate starts at 8 pm central time tonight and tomorrow. My twitter account is @politicswarblog. If you don't have Twitter or just don't want to follow there, I will also be posting on Gab.ai.

Given the huge number of candidates there will be 10 debaters tonight and 10 tomorrow night. The debaters for tonight include the following:
Cory Booker
Bill de Blasio
Julián Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Elizabeth Warren

For tomorrow we will have the rest:
Joe Biden
Michael Bennet
Pete Buttigieg
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Bernie Sanders
Eric Swalwell
Marianne Williamson
Andrew Yang

It will be broadcast on NBC News but should be avalible to stream elsewhere.

As far as I go, it's going to be a test for me. The 2020 race doesn't have anyone on the Democrats side I can root for unlike last year where they at least had Jim Webb. This year is a clown car of epic proportions...

ISIS leader of Yemen branch captured in raid by Yemeni and Saudi Arabian special forces.

File photo of Yemeni special forces. AFP.

The leader of ISIS's Yemen branch has been captured in a raid by Yemeni and Saudi Arabian special forces. AFP. Abu Osama al-Muhajir was captured along with the chief financial officer in a raid earlier this month. It is unclear exactly when and where the raid occurred. Weapons, ammo, laptops and currency were also taken in the raid. ISIS and other terror groups, most notably al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have used the ongoing civil war between the Saudi backed Yemeni government and the Iranian backed Shia Houthi rebels. 

My Comment:

This is a major blow to ISIS in Yemen. Yemen was functioning as one of their back up countries after their defeat in Syria and Iraq. They have been using the chaos there to avoid the kind of attacks they faced in other countries. But unfortunately for them pretty much every other faction there hates them, including AQAP. 

Losing both their leader and chief financial officer is a huge disaster for ISIS. Leadership is very important and hard to replace. And capturing people so far up in the organization will probably result in intelligence which can be used to launch further raids against ISIS. It's yet another body blow to a terror group that is already on it's heels. 

However, ISIS in Yemen has never been as popular or powerful as many of their other affiliates. AQAP is the main game in town and ISIS hasn't been able to make the kind of gains they have made in Egypt and Afghanistan. Though they have taken advantage of the chaos, they have been unable to make much ground or launch many terror attacks. 

The Saudis obviously helped with this raid and may have been a major reason why it succeeded. I also suspect that the United States likely helped the operation as well, in a non combat role. Not to insult the Yemeni special forces but I am not sure they could have pulled this off on their own.

I do think that ISIS will continue to have a foothold in Yemen. With the war raging between the government and the Houthis (and let's be honest here, it's really a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran) ISIS will have a chance to continue being a threat. Without a united front against them they have a chance to recover from this raid.  

ISIS as a whole though is barely hanging on. They have lost their strongholds in Syria and Iraq and are not the force they once were in Libya. They are only really strong Egypt and Afghanistan and even there they are under constant pressure. And other than the very notable Easter attack in Sri Lanka, they haven't pulled off a major terror attack in a long time. This is yet another setback in a group that is rapidly losing relevance. 

Mexico has deployed 15,000 troops to the US border to stop illegal aliens.

Mexican National Guard units detain Cubans who were trying to cross the border. 

Mexico has deployed 15,000 troops to the US border in an effort to stop illegal aliens from crossing into the border. Reuters. In the past Mexico has not attempted to stop illegal aliens from crossing over to the United States. Mexico was under pressure from US President Donald Trump who threatened tariffs and withdrawing from trade deals if something wasn't done. 6,500 troops were also deployed to the border with Guatemala. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Almo) promised to reduce the number of Central Americans within 45 days on June 7th. If the plan does not work Mexico may pass additional laws. 

My Comment:

First of all, apologies for the obvious and odious bias in the Reuters report. Unfortunatly there isn't a reliable news outlet that calls these people what they are. Illegal aliens, illegal immigrants or just plain criminals. Calling them "undocumented migrants" is true double-speak and shows where the media's sympathies lie. 

Of course media bias in favor of illegal is well documented and severe. Most of what we are hearing about the illegal immigration crisis is obvious propaganda, trying to drum up sympathy for these people, who deserve little to none. There is absolutely no reason to continue on to America if they are already safe in Mexico and there is also no reason for them to cross the border illegally when asylum an be determined in Mexico. 

It does seem like President Obrador is serious about helping the United States fix the crisis at the border. The 15,000 troops at the northern border and the 6,500 troops at the southern one will help reduce the number of illegals coming and going into Mexico. It's also clear from the Reuters report that these troops are actually doing their job by detaining these people. 

President Trump's campaign to pressure Mexico seems to have paid dividends. Everyone in the media was complaining that tariffs were unfair and wouldn't work but very few of them have admitted that the pressure worked and that President Obrador caved. 

I don't think this deployment will totally stop the border crossings. There are too many undefended areas and too much money to be made for coyotes. Even with troops on both sides of the border, the only way to completely stop illegals would be for both countries to deploy their entire military. Even a border as militarized as the DMZ between North and South Korea still has border crossings. 

That being said, having both sides of the border protected will likely help things a great deal. Reducing the number of people coming into America will help things a great deal. It should stop large caravans in their tracks and may force people to come in one at a time instead of in large groups. It won't stop everyone, nothing could do that, but it will help. 

Of course, the border crisis is only part of the problem. With so many people having crossed over already there are still millions of illegal aliens in the country. And border apprehensions will only stop the problem from getting worse and won't do anything to stop the people that already here. What is needed now is deportations and a lot of them. Given the unlikelihood of a deal between President Trump and Democrats, those deportations should begin in a couple of weeks. 

In a huge handout to the upper classes, Bernie Sanders offers up total forgiveness for student loans.

Bernie Sanders with Elizabeth Warren in 2017. Yahoo News/Getty.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has proposed a massive debt forgiveness that would wipe out student debt. Yahoo Finance. The plan would wipe out $1.5 trillion in student loan debt by raising taxes on investment in America. Sanders said it wasn't the fault of college graduates that they were in debt and that they should not be punished for it. Around 11% of student loans are delinquent. Elizabeth Warren has proposed a similar plan but her benefits would be limited based on income and capped at $50,000 of loan forgiveness. 

My Comment:

Bernie Sanders plan gives me an opportunity to talk about something I have wanted to talk about for a long time. And that is the role of class in America. All to often it is assumed that the only things that divides Americans is race, ethnicity and politics, but social and economic class is almost completely ignored. 

There are many ways to divide Americans into different groups, but one of the better ones I have heard is to do it by how people make their money. (As a disclaimer, this isn't my own original thought but comes from a guy named John Michael Greer, a druid of all things, but an interesting writer.) In short you can roughly divide America into four different classes. 

First, there are the benefits class. These are your welfare people, prisoners and everyone else that survives from handouts from the government. Second there are your hourly workers who make their money from wages. Third is the salary class, which is self explanatory. Finally, there is the investment class who makes most of their money through the stock market. There are obviously people that don't fit into any of these classes, like small business owners, or people that are kind of in between, but as a rough outline it works.

Of these, the wage class is probably the largest and one that has suffered the most under modern globalism. Generally speaking they are the ones that have paid the price for things like illegal immigration and trade deals while the salary and investment classes benefit the most. The benefits class generally stays the same no matter what, given how marginalized they are. 

In the past, having a full time job at an hourly rate was enough to start a family, own a new car and generally be secure economically. This is no longer the case and many of the good jobs that America had for the less skilled have been outsourced to other countries or have had their wages lowered due to competition for immigrants, legal or otherwise. In short, it sucks to be the wage class right now.

Making things much worse is the fact that many Democratic policies that claim to help the poor, actually help the salary class as well. This isn't a "1%er bankers ruin everything" rant. Far from it. Instead it's the people below them, the people that make their money from government jobs and big business, that are reaping the rewards from eviscerating the lower classes. Any Democratic plan to improve things almost always benefits those that are already in a privileged situation.

Obamacare was a great example of this. Though it did help some on the margins of the benefits class, it absolutely destroyed the wage class. The salary class was largely unaffected by the downsides of Obamacare as they almost exclusively get their insurance through work. Plus they got the benefits of many new salaried jobs that require college degrees. For the people in the wage class, many of whom don't get insurance through work, Obamacare was devastating. Many of them made too much money to get any assistance in paying for it but did not make enough money to actually afford either the insurance or the fines. 

I see Bernie Sanders handout plan as yet another example of this. It only helps those who, and God forgive me for saying this word, privileged enough to actually go to college. A college degree is a huge hallmark of the salary class and I have always seen it as a class marker, not an actual qualification. In general, these are the people that already have a leg up on everyone else and the last thing they need is a handout. 

In this way, I see Elizabeth Warren's plan as being more "fair", even though I totally oppose it as well. Her plan at least takes wealth, which is a good proxy for social class, into consideration. If you are already making quite a bit of money, you don't catch a break, but people that went to college and haven't reaped the supposed economic benefits of doing so, you do. This seems a lot more fair than just giving money to people who already have the ability to pay off their debts. 

Of course, either plan would have a huge economic cost as well and again, I think it would be the wage class that would be hurt the most. Sanders and Warren say that they will tax the investment class to pay for the handout but much of the burden will fall on poorer people. They won't pay directly, but they will see lower wages and fewer jobs as the investment class decides that investing isn't the best thing to do anymore and instead decide to hold onto their money. 

Finally, politically this seems like a disaster for Democrats. Much like the reparations kerfuffle, it's a policy that benefits one group of people at the expense of pretty much everyone else. People with outstanding student loans would be thrilled, of course, but everyone else would be pissed. People that have never gone to college would get nothing out of this and for those that went and paid off their loans it's a huge slap in the fact. I will admit that unlike reparations, the number of people effected by student loans is fairly large, but it's not enough to win an election outright.

Though Sanders may secure the votes of college age students with a ton of debt, he's going to alienate everyone else. This policy, if enacted, would cause major resentment among everyone who doesn't benefit and is almost certainly a non-starter in congress even if Democrats somehow manage to take both chambers. I just can't see it ever being implemented and even talking about it probably hurts Sanders' chances in 2020. 

President Trump says his biggest mistake was hiring former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

President Donald Trump. USA Today.

President Trump said in an interview with "Meet the Press" that his biggest mistake of his presidency was hiring former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. USA Today. Chuck Todd asked him what his one "do over" would be for the presidency and Trump answered "personnel" adding that it was his biggest mistake. Trump fired Jeff Sessions from his post before the 2018 midterms. Sessions had recused himself from the Russia investigation and allowed the appointment of Robert Mueller. 

My Comment:

I think that at least in terms of personnel decisions the hiring of Jeff Sessions was probably the biggest mistake President Trump has made. I'm in full agreement with him here and even Democrats would likely agree with him. 

Without Jeff Sessions, there would have been no Mueller probe, at least not as we know it. And if he hadn't recused himself on the Russia investigation he could have kept a tighter reign on the investigation to make sure that it actually focused on Russia and not President Trump. Even outside of that debacle Sessions was a bad Attorney General as his focus was not on prosecuting people like antifa or various other criminals but was instead focused on fighting legal marijuana. He did work well against human trafficking but that work has continued without him. 

Even worse, had Sessions just stayed in the Senate, his formerly very safe seat in the chamber would have almost certainly remained under GOP control. Alabama is a deep red state and Sessions was very popular there. Him resigning to serve in the Trump administration allowed Roy Moore to run in what was a disaster even before the media decided to assassinate his character. With Doug Jones still in the chamber and running again in 2020, possibly against Roy Moore again, it's no guarantee that the GOP will win back that seat anytime soon. 

I do remember that during the tenure of Jeff Sessions that many on the right were fighting each other about him. One faction, the one that turned out to be right, said he was incompetent and that Trump was going to fire him. Another loved Sessions and thought he was working hard behind the scenes to round up people like Hillary Clinton and other criminal Democrats. Finally, there was a third group who thought the whole discussion was a huge distraction from the actual problems of the day (I was in this group).

In the end though, Sessions was fired and the 2nd group ended up with egg on their face. It also was one of the final blows to the Qanon theory as Sessions was always a huge part of that theory. Some die-hards still follow Q, but in the end it was discredited by the fact that Sessions was fired. 

I do wonder who could have been chosen instead of Sessions. I know former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had lobbied for the job, but I would have hated him even more than Jeff Sessions. Sessions was fairly bad at his job but at least he was pro-gun...

In the end though, I think this was a case of Trump picking someone who was supposedly loyal to him instead of the best man for the job. Sessions was a big early Trump supporter and was a big reason why Trump won in the first place. Rewarding him for that help was probably a well intentioned move but not one that worked out for President Trump or the country...

President Trump canceled strikes against Iran after deciding the attack would not be proportional.

President Donald Trump. Reuters.

President Donald Trump called back strikes 10 minutes before they would have been launched after deciding the attack was not proportional when compared to the loss of an unmanned drone. Reuters. President Trump was told that the strikes, targeting missile and radar batteries involved in the attack on the drone, would kill as many as 150 people. Trump said he was ready to launch the attack but pulled back. He also said that new sanctions were having an effect. A diplomatic message was sent from the United States to Iran via Oman trying to open a dialogue with Iran. Trump reportedly bucked his advisers who were recommending the strikes. Reception to the incident was mixed with some criticizing him while others praised, more along hawk/dove rather than Democrat/Republican lines. 

....On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019

....proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019

 My Comment:
The reaction to President Trump's actions on Iran has been confusing to say the least. At the same time he is being called a warmonger for picking a fight with Iran and at the same time is being criticizing for not fighting Iran. Even more confusing is that many of his left wing critics are praising him while some of the more hawkish right are condemning. Of course many on the left will criticize him no matter what he does and much of his base is very happy he didn't launch strikes.

What's my thought? I think this was probably the right call. Blowing up a bunch of people probably isn't the right response for a drone being shot down. Nobody had died and the only thing that was lost on both sides was money. Killing a bunch of soldiers and possibly civilians wouldn't bring the drone back and could cause retaliatory attacks.

Launching the strike and then pulling it back also sends a strong message to Iran. They know that they are right up to the line and almost crossed it and that they are getting very close to forcing a military response. They know that if they try this again or cause any loss of life for Americans they are getting hit.

However, I am not sure what Iran is going to do. President Trump is trying hard to get them to come to the negotiating table but so far they have refused to do so. That's an incredibly stupid move for them as it risks conflict and cooperating with the US will have a better outcome for them. They are still angry about the Iran deal, which Obama never should have entered into, being pulled back, so that explains some of their behavior. But pushing the issue this far doesn't make much sense.

This is pretty much what I expected to happen. The chicken little's that were saying that a full scale war was coming were completely wrong. That's not surprising as they said the same thing with North Korea, Syria and Venezuela. I had said that either nothing would happen or there would be very limited strikes and it turned out that I was kinda right on both counts.

I am fairly pleased with President Trump's foreign policy. As mentioned before, he really hasn't gotten into any new wars. Whenever he has used military force it has been restrained and haven't involved any massive invasions. Instead of wasting lives and money he has been doing foreign policy on the cheap. He has also been very willing to let diplomacy work. I have no doubt that if Hillary Clinton was president right now we would be at war with Iran right now if they had provoked us the same way, assuming we weren't too busy being at war with Russia instead.

US Navy RQ-4 Global Hawk shot down by Iran.

A file photo of a Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk. US Air Force via Wikipedia. 

A US Navy RQ-4 Global Hawk was shot down by Iran, contributing to the high tensions between the country and the United States. Fox News. The drone was shot down by a surface to air missile over the Strait of Hormuz. The United States claims it was over international waters while Iran says it was over their territory. Iran also attempted to shoot down a second drone but failed to do so. President Trump condemned the attack but left open the possibility that Iran had made a mistake. The incident follows attacks on two oil tankers and many attacks on Saudi Arabia from Iran's Houthi rebel allies in Yemen. 

My Comment:

Thankfully this was just a drone. A very expensive and classified drone but a drone nonetheless. No humans were hurt in this incident and all that was lost was the drone and the missile fired at it. It's fairly amazing that with all the escalations and attacks from Iran recently there haven't been any deaths (not counting their proxies in Syria and Yemen). 

And make no mistake, this is a huge escalation. Though shooting down a drone is not the same as shooting down a manned aircraft it is a huge middle finger to the United States. Having a drone shot down like this may draw an armed response. 

I generally believe that this drone wasn't flying in Iranian airspace. Our drones wouldn't need to cross over and we weren't looking to provoke fire from them. Iran is spoiling for a fight and shooting down a drone seems like a deliberate act. Their claims that it was violating their airspace make little sense. 

That being said, it's also clear that President Trump doesn't want war. He campaigned against wars in the Middle East and has done a good job using diplomacy and a lighter touch that Bush and Obama did. A full scale invasion of Iran would torpedo his 2020 chances (one of the few things that would) and he personally thinks that a fight would be stupid. While the tanker attack was occurring President Trump had his ally, Japanese Prime Minster Shinzo Abe, was in Iran trying to deliver a message of peace. That attack and this one shows that Iran isn't really interested in it. 

That explains the comments Trump made about Iran making a mistake. I don't think he believes for a moment that this wasn't a planned attack from Iran. But he's giving them an out. If the Iranians wanted to they could blame a local commander for the incident and then come back to the negotiating table. It's not likely to work, but it is certainly worth a try. 

President Trump also seems to be in disagreement with the war hawks in the administration. John Bolton is pushing for war and I bet that Mike Pence is as well. Trump may or may not listen to them, but my gut goes with no. But I think something is likely to happen. There just isn't anyway for America to ignore these kinds of attacks. 

However, any conflict with Iran isn't likely to be a full scale invasion. I can't see President Trump ordering that but even if he did, we aren't anywhere near strong enough in the region to take on Iran. If we had a huge invasion force deployed to the Middle East, even bigger than the one used against Iraq, then it might be likely, but we aren't anywhere near that right now. 

What is more likely is a series of limited air strikes targeting military targets, similar to what happened in Syria. Those strikes were very limited and more of a bloody nose than anything. It wasn't a full scale war with Syria and I doubt it will be with Iran. But with this latest provocation it looks even more likely that something will happen between Iran and America... 

Syrian refugee charged with plot to bomb Pittsburgh church for ISIS.

The Legacy International Worship Center. NBC News/Google Maps.

A Syrian refugee has been charged with a plot to bomb a Pittsburgh church for ISIS. NBC News. Mustafa Mousab Alowemer, 21, recorded himself pledging allegiance to ISIS. He also attempted to purchase explosives from an undercover FBI agent. He was arrested for providing material support for ISIS and distributing bomb making information in relation to the attack. His plan was to set off the bomb in July early in the morning. Alowemer was admitted as a refugee in 2016 but is not a US citizen and is not a permanent resident. 

My Comment:

This was a very stupid plot by this refugee. First of all attacking this Church wasn't going to look out for him. It's pretty tiny and doesn't look like it would have all that many people in it. Also, the time of day he wanted to attack it at pretty much ensured that nobody would be killed in the attack, which might have been his point. If so, he's a pretty bad ISIS recruit as they prioritize casualties above anything else. 

Of course, if all he wanted to do was destroy a church, why not use a box of matches and a few gallons of gasoline or other flammable liquid? It would have had the same effect as a bomb but would be much cheaper and would have the added advantage of not bringing as much local and national law enforcement attention. The fact that the attacker wanted bombs just goes to show that many would be terrorists are just absolute idiots. 

The plot also failed because the attacker didn't make the assumption that all terrorists should make. If you are discussing you plot with others there is a good chance that they will turn you in or are a FBI agent. It should have been obvious that his plot was going to fail. 

I don't know how much of a threat this man was. His plot was stupid and even if he had gotten help it's pretty unlikely it would have been successful. It seems like this is another case of a guy that probably wouldn't have amounted to anything if he hadn't run into the FBI. 

That being said there is no reason for Alowemer to be in the United States in the first place. He was graciously given a second chance after fleeing Syria and this is how he repays us? Bringing him here was a mistake but after he serves his time he should be deported immediately, no matter what condition Syria is in at that time. 

It is also another example of an ISIS affiliate targeting churches. The terror group has a long history of targeting Christians and was responsible for the massive terror attacks in Sri Lanka, among many, many others. Thankfully, this plot never got off of the ground, but the threat to churches and Christians still exists. 

President Trump raises almost $25 million in 24 hours after announcing his candidacy for 2020.

President Trump at his announcement rally in Florida. Politico/Getty.

President Trump raised almost $25 million in 24 hours after announcing his candidacy for 2020. Politico. RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said that Trump had raised $24.8 million after his announcement rally in Florida. This is much more than Democratic front runner Joe Biden raised after his announcement. Biden was only able to raise $6.3 million in the 24 hours after he announced.  Trump also blew out other 2020 candidates including Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke ($6.1 million), Bernie Sanders ($5.9 million) and Kamala Harris ($1.5 million). 

THANK YOU! #Trump2020🇺🇸 https://t.co/recnmmYAFN

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 19, 2019

My Comment:
Quite a haul for the President. $25 million is not chump change and the Republicans have already raised millions of dollars for their 2020 warchest. This is a pretty big advantage for the President and might help him win in 2020.

Indeed, President Trump is already spending his money. I have seen ads for him on various internet sites, including this blog. I have yet to see any advertisements for Democrats at all. Though the impact of advertisement this early probably has little effect, it's not nothing.

Part of the reason for Trump's big haul is because he has no competition. There isn't going to be a credible primary challenger for the 2020 race in the Republican Party, so anyone who want to donate money has to donate to him. Compare that to the Democrats clown car where there are more than 20 candidates to spread the wealth.

That being said, it seems likely that Trump has out-raised all of the Democrats combined. He has a ton of enthusiasm from his base. He got a great reception at his announcement in Florida and his approval rate among Republicans is sky high. People were waiting for his rally for hours in the rain and he had thousands of people show up. Compare that to the dozens or hundreds that the Democrats are bringing in, I think there is a real enthusiasm gap.

However, it's really early yet. A lot can happen between now and 2020. With the Democratic Party in chaos it could stay that way or they could eventually shake things out. And a lot could happen with President Trump that could erode his support.

But I think that barring some kind of disaster Trump has huge advantage. His supporters love him and he had a big money advantage right now. He also has the natural advantage of incumbency and has at least tried to deliver on his campaign promises. Finally, the economy is still firing on all cylinders and people aren't likely to want to change presidents when he is doing a good job. My guess is that next year America will choose to have four more years of President Trump.

Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan withdraws from consideration for position.

Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. Reuters. 

Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan has withdrawn from consideration for the Secretary of Defense position after reports of family violence. Reuters. Shanahan said he made the descion to protect his three children from reliving a traumatic part of their life. Secretary of the Army Mark Esper will replace Shanahan in his position and will likely be nominated for the Secretary of Defense position. The incident happened with his ex-wife and both parties said that the other had hit the other. His ex-wife was arrested for the incident but charges were dropped. In another incident his son allegedly hit his mother with a baseball bat, knocking her unconscious. Shanahan said his son was acting in self defense. 

....I thank Pat for his outstanding service and will be naming Secretary of the Army, Mark Esper, to be the new Acting Secretary of Defense. I know Mark, and have no doubt he will do a fantastic job!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2019

My Comment:
I don't have strong opinions on if Patrick Shanahan was good in his position at the Pentagon. He didn't really have the impact that Jim Mattis had and his exit won't be as acrimonious as that one was.  He has quietly existed in his role but with scandals bubbling up under the surface. He was already cleared of an accusation of favoritism but this new incident torpedoed his chances.

However, I think there is a decent chance that Shanahan got screwed here. It's also possible he's a domestic abuser. Without a trial to determine the outcome of his case it's hard to tell who is at fault but it's even possible, and indeed likely, that the incident was a case of mutual combat.

I will say that the fact that the ex-wife was arrested and Shanahan was not tends to support his claim that she hit him, not the other way around. Police often either arrest both partners or arrest the man, regardless of the circumstances. My guess is that she really was the aggressor, but without a ruling either way it's hard to tell.

If she was the aggressor then this case is an absolute travesty. If Patrick Shanahan was the victim of domestic abuse then he should in no way have to resign. I can totally understand wanting to, who would want to put themselves through a Kavanaugh style hearing where every Democratic politician and media talking head accused you of being a wife beater when she was the one that beat him? Still, it's fairly disgusting to me that could be the case here.

Even more absurd is the idea that his son's actions should be part of the conversation. Whatever happened between his ex-wife and his son it happened after the split and they weren't living together. Shanahan is in no way responsible for his son's, or his ex-wife's, actions. And if it was self defense then it's even worse as his son may have done nothing wrong as well.

It seems that's the way it goes these days. With the media so out to get President Trump and any of his nominees, there can't even be a hint of scandal with any of them. Brett Kavanaugh shows how low the Democrats and the media are willing to go and it's much easier to confirm someone when the only question is one of policy. Hopefully Mark Esper will not have any trouble getting confirmed.

The timing of this is especially bad. Tensions are high with Iran and we need competent leadership to either avoid a full scale war or launch limited strikes. Not to mention the threat from ISIS and all the various other hot spots in the world. Not having a confirmed leader at the Pentagon is a huge distraction from the challenges the country faces and I hope that we get Esper confirmed as soon as possible.

Parkland survivor and gun rights activist Kyle Kashuv kicked out of Harvard for saying the N-word years ago.

Kyle Kashuv. Yahoo News/Reuters.

Parkland survivor and gun rights activist Kyle Kashuv has been kicked out of Harvard after proof he said the N-word was discovered. Yahoo News. Kashuv posted several messages using the N-word and people that had access to his comments sent them to the media. Kashuv said that he was making "idiotic comments" and is no longer the same person who made the comments when he was 16. In response to the messages Harvard pulled Kashuv's acceptance to Harvard, which Kashuv planned on attending in 2020. 

My Comment:

What a cowardly move by Harvard. I don't believe for a second that they kicked Kashuv out for his language but for his political beliefs instead. His scores were good enough to get into any university, unlike David Hogg, but they hate him because he supports gun rights. I am 100% certain that if David Hogg got caught using the N-word, he would not be kicked out. 

More disturbing to me is the fact that Kashuv is being punished for statements he made as a minor. If someone had text copies of what I said when I was 16 I probably would get in trouble as well. I didn't say the N-word but, as all teenage boys do, I am sure that I said something horrible offensive to those looking to be offended. If that is the standard we are going to hold people, and let's be honest, only conservative people, then nobody is going to pass. Period. 

It's also pretty obviously a culture clash between generations as well. For older Americans, the n-word is the most horrible thing you can ever say. It's so offensive that you can be fired for saying it, even in a non-offensive context (which is why I am forced to say "n-word" instead of the actual word). It's a word with so much power that if the wrong person says it in the wrong context they can be kicked out of polite society. 

However, for the young kids, it's really not that big of a deal anymore. Years of hearing the word in music and the pretty much unlimited use of the word on the internet means that, to them, it's just another word. It was pretty clear from the actual text of Kashuv's words that he was just trash talking, like young men tend to do. The older generations may be aghast at it, but the truth is that for younger people the word has lost most of it's power. 

I'll let you decide which group is right but even if we do agree that the N-word is something that should never ever be said, it's still wrong to kick Kashuv out of Harvard. It may even be illegal as Harvard receives public funds and can't discriminate based on politics. I personally think there is a huge difference between saying the word and calling someone the word, but even then we do have free speech in this country. An institution that receives public funding should not be able to kick someone out no matter how offensive he is to them. 

If you say something dumb when you are a teenager, and let's be honest, every teenager has done so, you shouldn't be punished for it as an adult. And even if you do something dumb as an adult that shouldn't be the one defining moment for your entire life. Kashuv is a good person who fights for an absolutely critical cause, gun rights, and that should more than forgive him saying the n-word a few times when he was 16. He's grown as a person since the mass shooting that will likely define his entire life and he should be judged as who he is as a person, not on one specific incident. I've always been uncomfortable with people going all out against old statements as if people don't change, even when those people are my political enemies. 

Worst of all is how all of this came out. These weren't public statements, there were private communications that were leaked to the press. Even worse, the people also involved in the statements were too cowardly to give their names, probably because they said offensive things as well. This is a huge betrayal and much worse than anything Kushav said. 

Finally, for all the noise Harvard makes about diversity, they sure don't like political diversity. Kashuv would be a positive influence on campus as he would bring a perspective rarely seen to the elitist Harvard. His experience as a 2nd amendment rights supporter and now as a victim of the national media, would be a valuable lesson for the otherwise lockstep liberal college. 

Despite all of this, I do expect Kashuv to bounce back. I am sure there is some college out there that will accept him and he's still golden to the gun rights community. Quite frankly, the Democrats and the media are trying to make owning a gun as offensive as saying the n-word so I doubt anyone is going to care about their judgments in the gun rights community. I am sure Kashuv will be fine in the end. 

President Trump says he has been briefed on UFO's.

President Trump and George Stephanopoulos. ABC News.

President Trump said in an interview with ABC News that he had been briefed on UFO's but did not believe that they are extraterrestrial life. ABC News. Trump expressed skepticism of the recent spate of sightings, but said that he trusts the military pilots that are making the reports. He acknowledged the reports are becoming more public and told Stephanopoulos he'd be the "first to know" if it was proven the sightings were related to extraterrestrial life.  

My Comment:

A quick follow up to the various reports of UFO activity by the US Navy. Apparently President Trump knows about those reports and has been briefed on them. He's obviously very skeptical but he does say that he trusts his pilots and seems willing to discuss with the media if something comes up. 

It's not much but this was a serious question in a serious interview. In the past such a question would have been pretty much out of bounds other than as a human interest joke question. However, things have changed as the UFO sightings we have seen now are actually a potential threat to US pilots and are being taken seriously. 

I do think that if it really does turn out that UFO's are real and/or they are extraterrestrial I think President Trump would tell the American people. He's been fairly honest with the American people and quite honestly even if he wanted too, I can see him spilling it on Twitter even if his advisers didn't want him too. 

However, there isn't any evidence yet that UFO's are alien tech or even that the phenomenon being filmed is real. I think President Trump is right to be skeptical about the reports. Even though the Navy is taking these sightings seriously, that's about all that needs to be done. Now isn't the time to freak out. 

There isn't too much else to go on this post. I have talked about UFO's on this blog before and have posted some of the videos and reports that everyone is talking about. It seems like this story is getting a lot larger and isn't going away anytime soon. 

Almost 2 million people protest in Hong Kong against extradition law.

Some of the protesters calling for the leadership of Hong Kong's government to step down. Reuters. 

Almost 2 million people in Hong Kong showed up to protest a shelved extradition law. Reuters. Hong Kong's leader, Carrie Lam, has apologized for the law and suspended it, which would allow citizens to be sent to mainland China to be tried. Protesters want Lam to step down and to express anger about the way police handled the demonstrations. The law is controversial because Hong Kong has retained some independence and operates under "one country, two systems".

My Comment:

I haven't been covering the Hong Kong protests as I am far from an expert on internal Chinese politics. However, these protests are getting too big to ignore. The numbers of protesters vary massively with the Hong Kong government saying "only" 300000 people showed up. The protesters say 2 million, but I bet the truth is somewhere in between. 

I guess I understand why Hong Kong's populace is so upset. Though China isn't a federal system, a good comparison is if the American Federal government started extraditing and trying people accused of state crimes. With Hong Kong having extra privileges and rights, any attempt to remove some of those rights is going to be met with protest. 

It seems like China is going to back down a bit. They have already shelved the law but they haven't withdrawn it completely. They may do so soon in the future and get rid of Carrie Lam. China has always been terrified with civil unrest. They know that the biggest threat to rule of law is a civilian uprising, which is a major reason why Chinese citizens have no gun rights to speak of. With the fear of an uprising or protests spreading to mainland China, they may end up caving. 

That being said, these protest movements tend to fade eventually. China has seen major protests in Hong Kong before and it never amounted to anything. And France proves that long running protests won't necessary result in change. The Gilets Jaunes movement hasn't really accomplished much of anything and that has been going on for much longer than this protest movement. I fully expect this movement to end up the same way... 

Man accused of stabbing Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro during campaign acquitted due to mental illness.

Adélio Bispo de Oliveira after his arrest. BBC/Reuters.

Adélio Bispo de Oliveira, the man accused of stabbing President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, has been acquitted due to mental illness. BBC. A federal judge ruled that Oliveira can not be charged under Brazilian law because he wasn't aware of his actions at the time. President Bolsonaro said he would appeal the ruling and said that the attack was politically motivated and that Oliveira had help. Bolsonaro was almost killed at a campaign rally after Oliveira stabbed him in the intestines. Bolsonaro went on to win the presidency and has recovered from his wound. 

My Comment:

Wow, talk about a miscarriage of justice. There is zero question of whether or not Oliveira did the attack or not so it's crazy that he wasn't put on trial. He came very close to killing the president of Brazil and you would think that would be enough to give him his day in court. But apparently not. 

I've always been of two minds of insanity defenses. At least in the US they are rare and don't often work out well for the defense. Even if you win, you still end up in a mental ward, which is not that different from prison. I do think that some people really are so mentally ill that they can't really be held responsible for what they do but then there are cases like this, or the attempt on Ronald Reagan back in the day, that ruin it for the truly mentally ill. 

Oliveira was probably somewhat mentally ill, but I doubt he was so insane that he didn't know the difference between right and wrong. His plot took a bit of planning and he was very open in his hatred of Jair Bolsonaro. I'm no expert but I think that whatever his illness he knew that trying to kill a presidential candidate was not a good thing to do. 

President Bolsonaro suggests that Oliveira might have had help with his plot. I don't know if that's true one way or the other, but it's certainly possible. Bolsonaro has many enemies as he is a right wing politician in a part of the world that usually elects left wingers. It's very possible that someone helped Oliveira in some way. I also have to note that terror groups often appeal to the mentally ill for recruits, so I don't know why political assassination would be any different. 

I do think that Bolsonaro probably got quite a boost from being attacked by Oliveira. He probably was going to win anyways, but having your candidate stabbed is a huge motivating factor for voters. He also probably impressed people by surviving something that should have by all rights killed him. In a perverse way, Oliveira probably helped Bolsonaro's chances more than he hurt them. I remember when this happened I thought to myself that Bolsonaro was going to win for sure and it turned out I was correct. 

Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 anti-air missiles is causing a major controversy.

Russians walk by S-400 missiles in Volgograd. Reuters.

Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 anti-air missiles is causing a major dispute with their US allies. Reuters. Turkey has threaten reciprocal action if the US imposes sanctions in the wake of the purchase. In addition to the sanctions, if Turkey accepts delivery of the system, the US would push Turkey out of the F-35 program. NATO says the system would be incomparable with their air defenses while the US says that the system would be a threat to the F-35 program. Turkey seems determined to keep the missiles though and have pointed out that it is too late to cancel the order. 

My Comment:

Turkey yet again proving that they are a poor ally. The entire reason NATO exists is to counter Russia, not buy their missiles. If Turkey were to use these missiles in a war it would probably be against Russian air craft so the purchase makes little sense in the first place. And it's not like the US and other governments couldn't sell a comparable system to the Turks. 

Are the S-400's a threat to US interests? I think so. Both the F-35 and the older F-22's have a big advantage over the Russians as their radar and missile systems are unfamiliar with the planes. They have gathered some data in the Syrian conflict but giving this tech to the Turks seems like a sure way to gather more info on the advanced fighter jets. 

America also doesn't want Turkey propping up Russia's weapon industry. Part of that is due to a desire to not compete with them, America makes a lot of money on weapons sales as well. But Russia is under sanctions for their behavior in Ukraine and elsewhere and this weapons sale is a major middle finger to that effort. 

Will the sale go through? Almost certainly. Turkey is being extremely stubborn here and would take it as a major matter of pride if they had to turn the weapons away. It would be a major loss of face for them and they won't allow that. 

I will say that they do have a point though. These weapons are already paid for. They aren't getting their money back if they cancel delivery and have very little reason to not take delivery, other than US objections. They never should have ordered the S-400 system in the first place but that's neither here nor there. 

I do think that the US-Turkey alliance is probably on the way out. Turkey has been a very poor ally as of late and helped let the ISIS situation in Syria and Iraq get out of control. They also hate the Kurds, who have been a great ally against ISIS, even when not compared with how terrible Turkey has been. They have taken a more authoritarian and religious path as well that is not compatible with US values. I would love to see them treated the same way we treat Iran and completely kicked out of NATO and any other US alliance.