Woman tosses Molotov cocktail at an Immigration center.

Cellicia Hunt was arrested for the attack. NBC Miami 

A woman has been arrested for tossing a Molotov cocktail at an immigration center in Oakland Park Florida. NBC Miami. Cellicia Hunt threw the device at the ICE center but the fuse fell away from the bottle and it failed to ignite. The woman was charged with attempting to destroy government property with fire. No injuries were reported but the center was forced to close for cleanup. The attack comes after two incidents where ICE centers were attacked by rifle fire. 

My Comment:

First of all, this woman is an idiot. Not only did she completely fail in her attack, it sounds like she attacked a citizenship center, not a deportation center. If she was upset about deportations she attacked the wrong place.

It's also pretty humorous that she failed so miserably. She was able to make a Molotov cocktail but failed to use it properly. The "fuse", presumably a rag soaked in gasoline, fell out as it was flying through the air. That's why the Finnish people who invented Molotov's used blasting caps instead of rags, but my guess is that this woman didn't even know how to correctly assemble Molotov's without blasting caps. She also probably didn't have the right fuel mixture either. 

Still, as big as failure of an attack this one was it is part of a disturbing trend. Another person was recently killed after their arson/mass shooting attempt failed miserably. And there were also a couple of incidents where people shot at ICE centers.

I think the media is largely to blame for this. They have been going on for years now about children in cages and other nonsense and that has whipped up the crazies. They believe the media and the politicians when they say there are concentration camps and the result is violence. Thankfully the only person who has gotten hurt so far is the antifa idiot that got shot in Washington state. 

But I don't know if we will continue to get so lucky. This attacker was an idiot but the plan she had was solid. An arson attack could easily destroy an immigration center and kill a bunch of people and had this attack been a little more competent she could have easily caused some major damage. It's very possible that we won't be so lucky in preventing the next attack. 

One dead and nine injured in a mass stabbing in France.

The area where the attack occurred. Google Maps. 

One person is dead and nine more injured in a mass stabbing in Lyon, France. Fox News. The attack left a 19 year old dead and three more people in critical condition. A 33 year old Afghan asylum seeker was arrested in connection with the attack. He was not previously known to police and police do not believe he had any connections to terror groups. The motive for the attack is unclear and it is also unknown if the attacker knew the 19 year old victim. 

My Comment:

Another day another mass stabbing in France. This time only one person was killed but there is always the potential for more people to die. It's just another example of the violence that Europe has right now. 

It's unclear what the motive for this attack was. The fact that the suspect was an Afghan refugee does make terrorism a possibility. Just because the police haven't found any connections to any terror groups does not mean that the motivation wasn't terrorism. Lone wolf attackers are a thing and given the fact that ISIS and other terror groups have been greatly reduced, they are the most common among recent terror attacks. 

Of course it could have been for many other reasons. Not all of these refugees are in the best mental health and many of them are criminals as well. It's very possible that this was an attack based on something other than religion and politics. However, that seems pretty unlikely with terrorism being the most obvious motive. 

No matter what the motive though, it's clear that this attack was 100% preventable. There was no reason for this man to be in France in the first place. If he really was in danger in Afghanistan, which is a real possibility, he could have stopped at one of dozens of countries that are between Afghanistan and France. He might have attacked someone there as well, but it wouldn't have been France's problem if he hadn't been admitted in the first place. 

The good news is that these kind of attacks have tapered off considerably. With ISIS being largely destroyed and their propaganda networks dismantled they have had a hard time carrying out and inspiring terror attacks. Many of the people willing and able to carry out attacks have either been arrested, killed or have simply given up the fight when it was clear that ISIS lost. We haven't seen a major terror attack since the Sri Lanka bombings last Easter and that is a very good thing. There was a time when these attacks seemed to be happening every day but this is the first one in a while that I can remember. 

Former Canadian Prime Minster Kim Campbell says she wishes Hurricane Dorian would hit Mar-A-Lago.

A screenshot of the tweet. 

Former Canadian Prime Minster Kim Campbell says she wishes Hurricane Dorian would hit Mar-A-Lago. Time. Canada's 1st female Prime Minster who served in 1993 made the comment on Twitter in response to a tweet urging people to prepare for the storm. Campbell implied that President Trump deserved the storm as he does not support global warming. Campbell has since apologized for the tweet. 

My Comment:

A quick post documenting another case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Campbell is a known Trump critic and has even called the president a "motherfucker". Hardly the behavior of a former prime minister. 

The idea that President Trump should lose Mar-A-Lago because he disagrees with people on global warming is extremely offensive, but Campbell went even further than that. Instead of a localized disaster that would only effect the resort, she wants the entire state of Florida to suffer as well. I'm not even from Florida and I think that's disgusting. 

It's also another example of someone saying something stupid on twitter. I think people, especially people who are verified on the platform simply forget that other people can see their tweets. That's why I try to be careful what I say on there and tend to censor myself pretty severely. I honestly think that the culture war would be notched down by several degrees if the platform did not exist. 

As for the storm itself it looks like it might be a major one. I have heard some report that it could be a category 4 storm, which is a major one. Florida is well prepared for storms but once it gets that powerful all bets are off. I am hoping that Kim Campbell is wrong and Florida does not sustain severe damage due to Hurricane Dorian. 

Editor's Note: Vacation

Just a quick FYI, I'm on vacation starting today. I'll be off all next week so posting might be sparse or at weird times. I'm not really going anywhere next week but I will be busy with stuff. I do plan on going to a gun range and I might put up a range report post.

Which candidates made the 3rd Democratic Debate?

The candidates and the time of the 3rd Democratic Debate. ABC News. 

Ten candidates will vie for the nomination at the 3rd Democratic Debate on September 12th. The Hill. The center of the stage will be held by the frontrunners. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris will be at the center. Long shot candidate Andrew Yang and Mayor Pete Buttgeig will attend as well. Four other candidates made it in as well, including Corey Booker, Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke, Juan Castro and Amy Klobuchar. The debate will be a one night affair and will be three hours long instead of two. 11 other candidates did not qualify for the debate and will not participate. One of which, Kirsten Gillibrand, has already dropped out. 

My Comment:

As always I plan to live tweet the debate. However, given how amazingly long the debate is going to be, 3 hours, I will probably not be able to live tweet the entire thing. As always, you can follow along on Twitter or Gab. 

I'm fairly disappointed that a couple of the candidates didn't make the debate. It seems clear that Tulsi Gabbard was screwed by the DNC. She qualified by donors but did not qualify in the polls the DNC chose. She did qualify in other polls but was not allowed to debate. Though Gabbard is a far leftist in pretty much every area, she is pretty good in foreign policy and would have been nice to see her push back against the other candidates. 

The other person I wish would be there is Marianne Williamson. Williamson is a kooky English teacher spiritualist type and though I don't agree with any of her policies she is extremely entertaining. She would have the three hour slog a lot easier to get through. 

As for the other candidates it's do or die time for many of them. I would say that only Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are in good shape, but all of them are vulnerable to a bad debate performance. Kamala Harris has to have a good debate performance to make up for the last one. Another one bad as the one she had in the last round will completely sink her chances. And the rest desperately need a boost in the polls that only a debate could provide. 

 I do think it is going to be better with fewer candidates. Having a two night debate was pretty grueling and with so many candidates in the field it was pretty impossible to keep everyone straight. It should also cut down on the interruptions and stupidity that we saw in the first two debates. 

Finally, I'm not expecting too much in the way of tough questions. Nobody is going to ask the candidates how much their policies are going to cost or how they will be paid for. Nobody will ask what they will do if the country doesn't go along with their policies. And nobody will call out their obvious racism and prejudice. ABC might be better than CNN and NBC, but not by much... 

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell apologizes for false report claiming President Trump had "Russian cosigners" for his loans.

Lawrence O'Donnell. Wikipedia user Er-nay.

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell apologizes for false report claiming that President Trump had "Russian cosigners" for his loans. Fox News. Yesterday O'Donnell claimed on Rachel Maddow's show that he had a source that told him that Deutsche Bank had proof that President Trump was only able to get loans because Russian oligarchs had cosigned for them. The story had zero proof and only a single source who went unnamed. President Trump threatened to sue O'Donnell and MSNBC and O'Donnell apologized about the story. 

Last night I made an error in judgment by reporting an item about the president’s finances that didn’t go through our rigorous verification and standards process. I shouldn’t have reported it and I was wrong to discuss it on the air. I will address the issue on my show tonight.

— Lawrence O'Donnell (@Lawrence) August 28, 2019

My Comment:
Once again, some very irresponsible reporting from MSNBC. I remember watching Twitter last night and seeing this story trend. The first thing I thought was "this is fake news". I didn't even know the source at this point but I knew it didn't make any sense.

Why? Because there was a two year investigation in President Trump and his family that found no collusion with Russia. If there had been any links to Russian cosigners Robert Mueller and his team would have found it. There was basically no way this story could be true. But a lot of people immediately believed it and the story trended on Twitter for about a day.

Which begs the question, why did O'Donnell report it as fact in the first place? Was it incompetence or enemy action? Did he get the story wrong or did he lie on purpose? I'd believe either and both explanations are plausible.

It's very possible that O'Donnell, who is obviously biased against the President, simply wanted to believe it was true. In his mind Trump is bad and any bad story about him is probably true. His source told him what he wanted to hear and he didn't ask any questions. He didn't follow the basic standards of his profession because he was excited to "get Trump" and ended up getting burned for it. 

It's either that or he lied on purpose. He knew that his statements would spread like wildfire and trend on Twitter. And he also knows that his retraction and apology will be ignored by the kind of people that watch MSNBC in the first place. He knows even if the story is false, reporting it as true will damage the President and increase his ratings. Anything to damage the President.

Whatever the scenario, let this be another reminder to not trust the mainstream media these days. When it comes to certain stories, like President Trump, gun rights or Brexit, you should always wait a few days because more often than not the story falls apart. Especially if it comes from the biased "journalists" at MSNBC.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has dropped out of the 2020 primary race.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. AFP.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has dropped out of the 2020 primary race. AFP. Gillibrand never really caught on in the primaries, only rarely polling above 1% of voters. She did not qualify for the 3rd debate and was unlikely to do so before the deadline. Her main issues were women's issues but she had to compete with several other women who were in the race, including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Marriane Williamson. Gillibrand, a Senator from New York, leaves a crowded field that has already seen four other candidates drop out. 

A sad day for the Democrats, Kirsten Gillibrand has dropped out of the Presidential Primary. I’m glad they never found out that she was the one I was really afraid of!

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

My Comment:
Another one gone. I have to say out of all the female candidates I thought Gillibrand was by far the most annoying. She was completely unlikable an not because of her politics. I hate Elizabeth Warren's holier than thou elitism and Marriane Williamson's kooky English teacher mysticism, but both of them were at least people you could listen to.

Not so with Gillibrand. She spent the entire first debate interrupting and screeching at the other candidates. She was shrill, annoying and completely unlikable. The entire debate I wanted her to shut up just so I could hear what the other candidates were saying. Though not quite as bad as Robert Francis O'Rourke, I found even Hillary Clinton, famous for her unlikability, more charismatic and respectful than Kirsten Gillibrand.

Though Gillibrand's likability was a major reason her campaign didn't take off, I think her hypocrisy was another reason. Gillibrand used to be a huge supporter of gun rights and got a high rating from the NRA. However, in 2020, Gillibrand went full fascist on gun rights and supported an assault weapons ban and magazine bans.

I think this was a huge mistake. Gillibrand needed a signature issue and gun rights could have been it. I don't believe for a second that every Democrat is on board with these unconstitutional and evil gun control laws that the party has come up with and Gillibrand could have been a champion for those people. Instead she sold her soul to the evil people pushing this nonsense on America. Once again, I think it may have been Eric Swalwell's failed but effective anti-gun campaign that pushed her left on this issue, along with pressure from the Michael Bloomberg funded anti-gun groups.

I also think that focusing on Woman's rights was a dumb thing as well, as dumb as Jay Inslee focusing on global warming. There really isn't anyone in the Democratic Party that disagrees with either issue so making it your focus on your campaign isn't going to help. Who in the Democratic Party is going to disagree with her on those issues? And why vote for her instead of one of the many other women running for President?

Kirsten Gillibrand also made a huge gaffe against the white women she was supposedly campaigning for. She famously said that she was going to explain "white privilege to those white women in the suburbs who voted for [President] Trump." Not only was this incredibly racist, it almost certainly alienated the very women she needed to support her campaign. Nobody wants a candidate that is going to lecture you about how racist you are simply because of the color of your skin.

Again, this is another case where standing up to the Democrat's platform would have likely gained her a ton of support. The white middle and lower classes absolutely hate this kind of racism and would have loved it if someone in the 2020 field spoke out about it. Instead Gillibrand doubled down on it to appeal to the far left racist "woke" vote that weren't going to support her anyways.

As for President Trump's tweet, don't take it too seriously. He's obviously joking and doesn't think that Gillibrand is a threat at all. My guess is that he knows that Gillibrand will rise to the bait, say something stupid and then make the Democrats look out of touch. President Trump knows what he is doing when it comes to social media.

Explosive allegations of infidelity against "Squad" member Ilhan Omar.

Ilhan Omar. NBC/AP.

Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar is accused of having an affair with one of her consultants according to new divorce filings. NBC News. The DC consultant, Tim Mynett, confessed to his wife Beth that he was in love with Omar last April. Mynett worked for the E-Street Group, a political consulting firm that had worked with Omar for her election campaign. Omar had paid the group over $200,000. Ilhan Omar has not commented on the accusations. 

The New York Post broke the story and has more in depth reporting. 

My Comment:

Under normal circumstances this would be a huge deal but the news media is pretty much ignoring this story. NBC, The Daily Mail and Buzzfeed are the only non-conservative outlets covering this story so far that I have seen and it doesn't appear to be trending on Twitter or showing up on Google News without searching for it. It seems pretty clear that people are covering for Ilhan Omar. 

Of course that's not the first time that has happened. Rumors have long swirled around her first marriage. People have accused her of marrying her own brother for immigration purposes. Those allegations haven't really been investigated fully, but that's because the media doesn't want one of their progressive "Squad" darlings damaged in anyway. 

Is the affair story even true? Right now we only have the court filings to go on but those court filing are explosive. And there are several incidents where Omar was spotted with Tim Mynett in social situations, which is circumstantial evidence at best. My gut says it is true though, but time will tell.

If true I think it paints Omar in a very negative light. Cheating on your husband with a married man is a pretty terrible thing to do. Causing that marriage to break up and cause a messy divorce where child custody is involved is even worse. 

I also think it makes Democrats and Omar look pretty hypocritical. They have always trashed male politicians when they have had affairs and they probably should do the same thing to Ilhan Omar as well, but they aren't so far. Omar's actions are also forbidden by her Islamic faith and according to her religion she should be punished for her actions, if the allegations are true. 

Assuming the allegations are true, should Omar resign? I'm not sure. She did funnel a bunch of campaign money to someone she had an affair with, but I don't know if that's a crime or even unethical. If it is than yes, she should resign.

But just based on the affair itself? I don't think so. I have said in the past that people shouldn't resign from elected offices based on affairs. I'm going to stay morally consistent and say that Omar shouldn't resign either. She's a bad person and should resign for dozens of other reasons but having an affair isn't one of them. 

But should the people in her district re-elect her in 2020? Well, obviously no, but not because of this. I will say that I think her chances went down quite a bit. Her Somali constituents probably won't approve of infidelity and I am guessing she won't win reelection.  

There are some race and gender things going on here that are fairly unusual as well. Tim Mynett and his wife are both white and Beth Mynett is much older than Tim. Beth is 55 years old while Tim is 38 and Ilhan Omar is 37. The age discrepancy probably predicted the affair fairly well, but probably didn't predict an affair with Ilhan Omar. Also, white male/black female relationships seem fairly rare. Perhaps Mynett just likes unconventional relationships? 

The biggest loser in this whole thing has to be the Mynett's 13 year old son. His parents are national news and he's now a footnote in the saga of one of America's most hated politicians. Going through a parents divorce is hard enough when it isn't national news. Destroying this boys life is probably the worst aspect of this story. 

Joe Arpaio is again running for the Sheriff seat that made him famous.

Joe Arpaio during his Senate run. Reuters. 

Joe Arpaio is again running for the same Sheriff seat that made him famous as "America's toughest Sheriff. Reuters. Arpaio was voted out in 2016 after a 24 year run as Sheriff of Maricopa County. He was also convicted of criminal contempt for enforcing immigration laws. He was pardoned by President Trump and also ran for Senate in 2020, losing to Martha McSally, who then lost the election to Krysten Sinema. If Arpaio wins the primary against his former Deputy, Gerard Sheridan, he will have to defeat Democrat Paul Penzone.

My Comment:

I still haven't forgiven Joe Arpaio for his 2018 Senate run. I still believe that he split the vote enough that Martha McSally won and then lost against Krysten Sinema. Had the more right wing voters coalesced around Dr. Kelli Ward instead of being split between her and Arpaio, McSally would have lost and I doubt Sinema would be a Senator right now. 

In this Arpaio reminds me of former and current Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. Both Moore and Arpaio were unfairly targeted for their politics and had their reputation destroyed. But in both cases dropping out of politics would have been the right move. Instead they both ran and ended up costing the GOP what would have been safe senate seats. 

As for his Sheriff run, I'm not sure what he is doing. The voters have already decided that they don't want Joe Arpaio anymore. He lost to Paul Penzone and I don't know why he would win against him now. Even President Trump's pardon probably won't help much. The contempt of court charges destroyed his reputation even if it was totally unfair. 

Even more concerning to me is his advanced age. Arpaio is 87, which is extremely old and if he wins he might even die on office. What's the point of voting for someone that won't make it through his term? It makes very little sense for Arpaio to run. 

I sincerely hope that Gerard Sheridan wins the primary and Joe Arpaio can just retire. He's 87 years old and he served his state well, but at some point he needs to retire. If he were to win, I'd be fine with it but I just don't see it happening. 

New poll has a three way tie in the Democratic Primary race.

Former Vice President Joe Biden. 

A new poll from Monmouth University shows a three way tie between Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The Hill. Biden shows 19% support while both Warren and Sanders had 20%. This is a major decline for Biden who 32% support last June. Kamala Harris was in 4th place with 8% while Corey Booker and Pete Buttgieg were tied in 5th place at 4%. Biden seems to be losing support from conservative and moderate Democrats with Warren and Sanders winning those voters over. 

My Comment:

On the surface, this poll is very bad news for Joe Biden. It looks like Biden lost much of his support while Warren and Sanders are surging. Even more strange is that Kamala Harris has kept her support after a disastrous debate performance. It almost seems unbelievable. Indeed, I had a whole post worked up talking about how this spells bad news for Joe Biden 

But a closer look at the poll shows why you shouldn't trust them. Buried in The Hill article is the methodology of the polling and it seems pretty clear that this one is garbage. Much like the polls during the 2016 election, it's clear that this one isn't reliable. 

First of all the sample size is tiny. It's only 298 people, all of them Democrats. That's not enough to really capture too much unless you do some real statistical magic, and it doesn't appear that Monmouth University did. 

Second, the margin of error is huge. It's +/- 5.7%. That's a huge margin of error and means that Joe Biden's support is as high as 24% or as low as 14. An almost 6% margin of error is huge and extremely unreliable. Good polling has a error rate around 2 or 3%. 

This poll is pretty much meaningless for anything but talking about the dangers of polling. I don't think it measures much of anything. But it is a reminder that you should always look at the sample size, methodology and error margin of polling. If you end up believing polls like this, you end up being shocked by things like the 2016 election... 

Israel strikes Iranian troops in Syria.

Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu. Reuters.

Israel bombed Iranian targets in Syria saying that the troops were getting ready to launch "killer drone" attacks. Reuters. The Israelis claimed that the Iranian Quds Force were readying an attack on Israel in a few days. The drones were small and loaded with explosives and were designed to slam into targets. Israel also released video of the drones as well and warned Iran that their forces could be confronted anywhere. Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu also issued a threat to Syria saying that countries that allows attacks to be staged from their territory will face consequences. 

My Comment:

A quick post on a very slow news day. I usually don't comment on Israel for obvious reasons but I thought this was fairly interesting. These strikes aren't unusual but the description of the drones is new to me. 

The Israeli government is calling these drones "killer drones" which seems kind of redundant. I mean, most military drones are killers in one way or another. I think a better description of them would be kamikaze drones as they are designed to slam into targets. 

Of course that begs the question, how are these different than normal missiles? I mean these are presumably powered by propellers but still, there doesn't seem to be that much difference between a laser guided bomb and a drone packed with explosives. I would assume that they would need someone on the ground directing them and wouldn't move as fast as a more conventional missile but still, it's not that different. 

It does go to show how important drones are in modern military conflicts. If a force like the Quds group can use these drones pretty much any group can. Though the Quds Force has state backing, it's not hard to buy a drone and pack it with explosives. ISIS pioneered that tactic and used it with some success in Syria. If they hadn't been defeated shortly after they probably would have launched terror attacks with drones on international targets. 

As for Israel and Iran, I don't think this incident is all that revealing. They have done this dance before, even with Iran using drones. Iran is using Syria as a staging area to strike Israel and Israel is responding by bombing targets in the country. The fact that Iran is using drones is pretty irrelevant, other than the odd nature of those drones. 

United States will open a new consulate in Greenland.

Thule airbase in Greenland. USAF.

The United States will open a new consulate in Greenland as US interest in the territory continues to rise. The Hill. The consulate will be in the capital of Nuuk and will open next year. America used to have a consulate there between 1940 and 1953. The move is seen as an effort to increase America's impact in the Arctic. President Trump floated the idea of purchasing the island but was rejected out of hand by Denmark, which controls the territory. 

My Comment:

It looks as though the United States is bypassing Denmark in it's effort to purchase or otherwise secure the island. By opening a consulate we are contacting the people of Denmark directly. Doing so should open the doors to a direct deal with the people of Greenland. 

I think Denmark made a huge mistake to reject the idea out of hand. When it comes right down to it, America is a hugely powerful and influential country and to ignore them is a big mistake. I think they rejected the offer because of who made it but I doubt that this idea will disappear after President Trump is gone. 

Greenland is a hugely important area as it is stocked with natural resources, including critical rare earth minerals and fuel sources like coal and uranium. It's also a buffer state between the United States and Russia. Having full control of the island would allow us to place better defenses there and could be used to launch attacks. 

I also think that China has put out feelers about purchasing the island, or at least doing the "soft colonialism" that they are doing in Africa. China has begun trying to secure mining rights in the territory and there is little doubt they will succeed. Denmark can't and won't do anything to stop them. 

This is obviously a major threat to the United States. China already has a lot of control of the mining for rare earth metals, a critical component of advanced electronics. If they were to secure Greenland as well they could cut America off entirely unless we gave up on trade. 

This is obviously unacceptable to America and I do think that we will try and ask Greenland directly. And we will offer them a better deal than China can give them. If we were to institute something like the profit sharing in Alaska in Greenland, give the people of Greenland directly some of the profits they are going to get from allowing us to use their natural resources, I am guessing they would vote for either independence from Denmark or to become a part of the United States. 

The media is slowly figuring out the fact that President Trump was deadly serious about purchasing Greenland. I am guessing that when it actually happens, either under President Trump or the next president, they will have to eat some crow... 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was treated for pancreatic cancer this month.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg. LA Times/AP.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was treated for pancreatic cancer this month. LA Times. She received radiation which successfully removed the tumor and requires no further treatment at this time. Ginsburg has long had health issues, including colon cancer in 1999, pancreatic cancer in 2009, a coronary stent in 2014 and broken ribs earlier this year. Ginsburg health has long been an important discussion as if she retires she will be replaced by a candidate nominated by President Trump and a GOP controlled senate. Doing so would ensure a solid 5-3 majority for conservatives with Chief Justice Roberts being a swing vote that usually votes with conservatives. 

My Comment:

Though it feels more than a little ghoulish to speculate on Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health, she's one of the most important people on the Supreme Court. She is the only thing preventing a rock solid majority for conservative justices. We would already have that now if Roberts was a more reliable judge but if/when Ginsburg retires the court should remain conservative for at least a generation. 

I have the feeling that Ginsburg is doing everything she can to hang on as long as she can. She does not want to be replaced by a conservative justice and even though her health his pretty terrible, I don't think she retires even if she is no longer unable to do her job. She will probably only leave the Supreme Court when she passes, sorry to say. 

If she does get replaced though it means that no matter what happens in the 2020 elections and beyond, there will be a check to Democrats if they manage to take back the Senate and Presidency and hang on to the house. The court could and would overturn overreach from the left at both the national and state level. It would blunt many of the Democrats worst instincts and help protect this country.

Which is why we have been hearing so many plots and schemes from the 2020 Democratic candidates to stuff or otherwise modify the court. They would do so even if the Democrats would win in 2020 or 2024 and Ginsburg had stayed around, but if she doesn't last that long it would make things even more urgent for them. 

It seems very clear that the Democrats are no longer interested in being fair and will use any victories they get to punish Republicans, males and whites. They have largely become unhinged and will do whatever they can to attack the right and Ginsburg retiring would just be more fuel to the flames. In their view none of President Trump's SCOTUS appointees are valid because they don't think he is valid and they will move to remove or neutralize the conservative justices on the court. I don't think they have really thought things through though. The American people won't support such an obvious power grab and will resist any such attempt. 

As for Ginsburg herself, I don't wish any harm to come to her, but I do wish she would resign. It's pretty clear that she isn't in any condition to continue working and she should spend whatever time she has left in retirement. It's the right thing to do for herself and her family and it's the right thing to do for the country. 

Funny joke of the day. Former congressman Joe Walsh considering a primary run against President Trump.

Former congressman Joe Walsh. 

Former congressman Joe Walsh is considering a primary run against President Trump. The Hill. Walsh is the 2nd Republican to announce a primary challenge after former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld. Joe Walsh supported President Trump in 2020 but has been extremely critical of him since then. Walsh was a single term congressman who was part of the Tea Party.

My Comment:

What a joke this run is. Walsh has essentially zero chance of being the candidate in 2020. President Trump's approval among Republicans has been hovering around 90% among Republicans and around 50% among voters. That is not the environment where there can be a successful primary challenger. 

The timing is pretty bad as well. The Democrats are already debating and have raised money. Joe Walsh hasn't even officially announced and Bill Weld hasn't gotten any support at all. Neither of them has the time to raise the funds and polling to actually qualify for a debate. 

It's also unclear who Joe Walsh would appeal too. The vast majority of Republicans are on board with President Trump's agenda. The ones that aren't have either left the party or are completely irrelevant neocons like Bill Kristol (who is backing Walsh's run). There isn't a constituency of people on the right that are unhappy with President Trump, other than far-right racists, and Walsh wouldn't go after them anyways. 

Furthermore it seems like Joe Walsh's whole pitch is that President Trump lacks the character to be president. That's essentially the strategy Hillary Clinton used in 2016 and it failed miserably. Voters don't care too much about character and instead care about policy. 

Trump is winning on policy for his voters. Though his weakness on gun rights hasn't been great, he has accomplished much in terms of immigration, the economy and foreign policy. Walsh doesn't seem to be anything but another neocon, who the Republican Party has rejected pretty explicitly. Voters don't care if Trump puts his foot in his mouth once in a while, they care about results and Trump is getting them. 

I also have to say that President Trump is far more entertaining than Walsh. I've seen Joe Walsh on Twitter and all he does is whine and act outraged. Meanwhile, President Trump is cracking jokes, making fun of the Democrats and generally being a laugh riot. Why would anyone vote for Walsh over someone like that? 

My guess is that Walsh doesn't want to win anything. He wants to get his name out there so he can make the cable news circuit. There is nothing that they like more than a "Republican" who only criticizes his fellow Republicans. It's not a legitimate run it's a way for him to make money.   

Washington Governor Jay Inslee ends his 2020 presidential campaign.

Governor Jay Inslee portrait. State of Washington.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee has announced that his is exiting the 2020 Democratic Presidential race. AP. Inslee ran a single issue campaign focused on global warming. Inslee said that he would support whoever the nominee is and said he realized he didn't have a chance to win. Inslee will now decide if he wants to run for a third term of Washington Governor. The Governor had not qualified for the 3rd Democratic debate. He had enough donors but did not reach 2% in enough polls to qualify. 

My Comment:

Another one bites the dust. Inslee joins Eric Swalwell and John Hickenlooper in dropping out of the race. As expected, after the 2nd Democratic debate the field is narrowing considerably. I fully expect more presidential candidates to leave the race soon. With such a wide and wild field sooner or later some of these people are going to have to drop out. By my reckoning none of them have a chance to beat President Trump but only a few, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, have a chance to be a candidate. 

Inslee strikes me as a "push" candidate. His goal was much like Eric Swalwell. Neither candidate had any realistic chance of ever being president but they did have issues they wanted to publicize and force the other candidates to focus on the issue. In Eric "nukem" Swalwell's case it was gun confiscation but in Inslee's case it was global warming. 

However, while Swalwell was effective in pushing the Democratic Party off the cliff that is gun confiscation, Inslee didn't seem to do much. Global warming came up in the two debates but I didn't think there was any change in any of the candidates positions. If that's the case than Inslee's run was pretty much completely pointless. 

Part of the problem for him is that all the candidates are on the same page on Inslee's pet project. There was some difference on gun rights but all of the candidates were supporting action on global warming. There might have been some disagreement on how to do that but nobody in the Democratic Party was really going to disagree with the idea that something needs to be done It would be the equivalent of someone on the GOP side focusing on abortion. What's the point if everyone agrees with you? 

I also think that Inslee had very little impact in either debate. I watched the entirety of both of them, somehow, and I don't remember any moments with him at all. He was present at both debates but he did not do much of anything with the time he was given. He didn't even make any gaffes that would have gotten him attention. He was just a non-factor. 

It's unclear if Inslee will now focus on a governor run. He's a 2nd term governor and though Washington has no term limits, it's rare for a governor there to run for a third term. My guess is that he probably will run and given how leftist Washington is, due to the dominance of Seattle on the rest of the state, he will probably win. He also has the advantage of incumbency, which is always a huge advantage. I do sincerely hope that he loses or doesn't run but I doubt that will happen. 

President Trump says he is considering an executive order ending birthright citizenship.

President Donald Trump. The Hill. 

President Trump has said he is considering an executive order ending birthright citizenship. The Hill. Birthright citizenship means that anyone who is born in the United States is a citizen, even illegal aliens. President Trump has mentioned this solution before but it is opposed by some in his party due to the 14th Amendment. Trump said birthright citizenship was on the way out, one way or the other. 

My Comment:

Big news if President Trump actually is able to pull this off. Doing so would be a boon to the United States and would help keep the population of illegal aliens down. Many of them come to the United States specifically to have children as having a US citizen as a child means you can't be deported until that child is 18. If this happens, both the illegal alien and their child could be deported. 

Not only would this executive order reduce the number of illegal aliens coming here as one of their main ways of evading the law would be closed, it would get rid of the motivation for doing so for many of these illegals. 

It would also be a body blow to the Democratic Party. They have to rely on new immigrants to bolster their election chances and getting rid of birthright citizenship would be devastating to them long term. Which means I am sure they will oppose this with whatever they have. Remember, when Democrats complain about the treatment of illegal aliens, what they are really saying is "we need these voters if we are to have any hope of winning national elections".

I do think that there will be some grandfathering in of older citizens. This would probably only apply to new children born to illegals after any executive order. I doubt Trump can or would take anyone's citizenship away. 

All that being said, does this have a realistic chance of happening? I guess it depends on what you mean by that. I do think that President Trump has a chance of doing this. It would be a promise kept to his base and would be extremely popular among them. 

However, I do think that the Democrats and their allies in the media would do whatever they could to make the order moot. Like I said, these are future Democrat voters and they are completely dependent on them. Banning birthright citizenship would be opposed by the Democrats for no other reason. They will use the courts and any other weapon at their disposal to stop Trump's executive order at all costs. 

As for me, I always thought birthright citizenship was a joke. Most countries do not have it and there is no reason why someone in the country illegally should be allowed to have children that are citizens here. Getting rid of it would be a massive victory to people who are actually native born and not citizenship tourists. 

President Trump says expanded background checks are now off the table.

President Donald Trump.

President Trump seems to have backed away from expanded background checks saying "America already has strong background checks" and that it's a "slippery slope". The Hill. He did say that there were "missing areas" but backed away from the "meaningful background checks" he advocated for in the wake of two mass shootings earlier this month. Instead, President Trump advocated for more mental health hospitals as a solution to mass shootings. The President said he was working with Democrats but he also said that they were not strong on the 2nd Amendment and would like to get rid of it entirely. 

My Comment:

As a gun owner I am very happy that President Trump seems to have seen the light here. Universal background checks would have done nothing to stop any of these mass shootings we had recently because the attackers in each case either bought their weapons legally or did something that was already against the law, like utilizing a straw buyer or stealing their weapons. It would however be yet another assault on gun rights that would only effect the law abiding citizens that already follow the rules. 

Why did President Trump change his mind? The media is saying it is all because of the NRA. While I agree they probably did have an effect as they are one of the most important civil rights groups in the country with a large amount of influence, I don't know if that is correct. Despite their recent problems I do think that they had a positive influence in this case. If the NRA is good for anything, it is lobbying and they did a good job of doing so in this case. 

However, I don't think it's fair for them to get all of the credit. I am guessing that President Trump got quite a bit of pushback from his base on his comments on gun control. I know that I personally e-mailed him saying I opposed new laws and I doubt I was the only one. In all the conservative circles I hang out on online I saw almost no support for new gun control and the few people that did got heavily criticized for it. 

I never buy polling that says people support gun control as many gun rights supporters either don't answer the polling or deliberately lie about it as they have zero trust for the kind of people that ask the question. My guess is that President Trump had access to more accurate information, like the number of people that wrote him and other GOP leaders saying they did not want further gun control. 

I do have to notice that no mention was made of red flag laws from either President Trump or the media reports covering this. Trump came out in support of those as well but I haven't heard him back off of them like he has for background checks. Without evidence either way I can only speculate. 

I am, of course, against red flag laws. In theory they could help prevent violent crimes but the problem I have with it is the same problem I have with NSA spying. Under Republicans the system would be fine but the Democrats would use it to abuse their political opponents. Red flag laws would be used to both harass gun owners and maybe even get them killed. I'm not sure that President Trump realizes that fact. 

I am, for once, happy that the American media's focus is so fleeting. They are completely unable to focus on one story for very long. Since the mass shootings we have gone from "NEW GUN LAWS" to "Trump's a racist" to "Trump's crazy for wanting to buy Greenland" and now "Trump's economy is bad". If the media had an attention span that lasted more than five minutes they might have been able to push new gun laws. But it appears that they have now failed. 

The biggest concern is that some new mass shooting will happen. Let me rephrase that, as nobody will care if there is another one with a black attacker and black victims. If a mass shooting happens with a white attacker or one that is motivated by non-Islamist/non-Leftist ideology, the media and the Democrats will begin yet another push for gun control. They will probably fail yet again but they are going further and further away from sanity on this issue and we should be very worried if they ever regain power again. 

Twitter and Facebook accuse China of using fake accounts to discredit Hong Kong protesters.

Protesters in Hong Kong. The Hill/Getty. 

Twitter and Facebook have accused China of using fake accounts to discredit Hong Kong protesters. The Hill. Twitter identified 936 accounts from China that were "trying to spread discord" in Hong Kong. Twitter believed these accounts were state backed and in response they have banned state backed media from any country from buying advertising. 200,000 more accounts were suspended before they became active. For it's part Facebook removed seven pages, three groups, and five accounts. 

My Comment:

I don't know what to think about this. On the one hand, I support the Hong Kong protesters and their opposition to communist China. They deserve to have their voices heard and do not deserve to be slandered. 

On the other, I'm extremely wary of the big tech companies deciding who and what should be allowed to have free speech. The accounts that were banned may have been fake but I don't think China's ideas and thoughts should be banned. I'm afraid that anyone who disagrees with the Hong Kong protesters are going to be called bots or inauthentic and banned from the internet. 

I also wonder if the people backing the Hong Kong protests aren't doing the same thing. You can't tell me that state backed accounts aren't pushing a pro-protester narrative. I am sure there are fake accounts and bots posting and retweeting things just like there are for pro-China subjects. But we aren't hearing anything about inauthentic pro-protest accounts being banned. 

I also disagree with Twitter banning state backed media groups from advertising. This would ban groups like RT, Sputnik and the various Chinese media groups from buying advertisement. This seems massively unfair as I can see no reason why the governments of the world shouldn't be able to have their opinions out there as well. It might also ban US outlets like Voice of America as well. 

However, I do think that accounts that are lying about what they are should be banned. I don't think there is anything wrong with a news outlet with state funding saying what they want to say on any issue at all. But I do have a problem with an intelligence agency using fake accounts to push ideas, even ones I agree with. 

I do wonder how much of an impact the internet is having on the Hong Kong protests. Though most social media is banned in China, people get around it with VPN's fairly easily. It's fairly clear that there is an information war coming from both sides. Hilariously enough the immortal Pepe the Frog meme is becoming a symbol of the Hong Kong movement.

As for the protests, it seems clear that China is trying to wait them out. That's what France did with the Yellow Vests campaign and I think China is going to try and emulate them.  I don't know how well that is going to work for them as it seems all of Hong Kong is protesting against China. Eventually China will probably be forced to act. 

ISIS attacks Afghan wedding killing 63 people and wounding 180.

The groom survived the blast but many of his relatives and friends died. BBC/Reuters. 

An ISIS attack on an Afghan wedding has killed 63 people and wounded 180 more. BBC. The groom, Mirwais Elmi, survived the attack along with his new wife, but he lost his brother and many other relative and friends. The attack occurred in Kabul in a Shia district. One man blew himself up inside the wedding while another detonated a car bomb when emergency services arrived. Both the Afghan government and the Taliban have condemned the attack. 

My Comment:

I don't have the time to go in depth with this post but I did think it was important to mention this attack. It isn't getting too much play in the media and considering the scale of what happened and how awful it was, that is a mistake. This is the most serious ISIS attack since the Sri Lanka attack earlier this year. 

It seems like this was a fairly sophisticated attack. The first bomber detonated during the ceremony while the second attacked the first responders. This is a common tactic for ISIS and one that has been fairly effective. It was devastating in this attack. 

The choice of target is significant as well. This looks like another hate crime against Shia Muslims carried out by ISIS. There wasn't any real strategic reason to do this other than to spread terror against Shiites. Shia Muslims have been a major target for ISIS since their inception. 

I also have to say it's pretty disgusting to attack a wedding. I understand that they are easy targets with many people crowded together and are especially vulnerable to bombings like this, but still. Attacking a wedding, which is supposed to be the happiest day of a young couple's life, is just beyond the pale. 

As for Afghanistan itself, it just goes to show as the war seems to finally be winding down, peace won't really come to the country. Even if the Afghan government, America and the Taliban come to some agreement, ISIS will have their own say in it. They will continue to attack in Afghanistan as long as it remains one of their only remaining strongholds. 

Should the United States buy Greenland? Is it even for sale?

President Donald Trump.

President Trump confirmed a story that said he was considering buying Greenland from Denmark. Fox News. President Trump called it a real estate deal and said that Denmark was losing millions of dollars. The President also said he is considering going to visit Greenland and Denmark but the real estate deal itself isn't on the front burner. Greenland has abundant natural resources and is in a critically strategic location. 

For their part, Denmark says Greenland isn't for sale. NBC News. Denmark's Prime Minster, Mette Fredericksen said that Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and not Denmark. Officials in Greenland also said that the island is not for sale. 

My Comment:

It doesn't sound like this is a serious proposal, just something that was being floated. My guess is that someone leaked it and once it got out there. It was probably something that President Trump thought up and hadn't even reached the "putting out feelers" stage. 

That being said, is it a good idea? I think it is. Greenland is way more important than most people realize. It would offer a major base to deter the Russians, and indeed we already have one base there. Gaining control of Greenland would give us an even larger buffer against Russian attacks.

Economically it's also a good deal for America. Greenland has a huge potential for natural resources. There are billions of dollars worth of ore in Greenland and it would also control large fisheries that could be profitable as well. Energy resources, such as coal and uranium, are common there and may become very important in the future. 

Greenland is also important for trade as well. If the global warming people are right, Greenland will be a major trade hub for the Northwest passage. I'm not sure if the Arctic Circle will be free of ice or not but if it does happen even through some of the year, then it will be one of the most important trade routes in the world. Having even more control of it would be a boon for America. 

Still, there is very little interest in selling from Denmark or Greenland. They seem to oppose the idea pretty strongly. Some of it might because President Trump, even if they loved the idea they will oppose it publicly due to the fact that President Trump came up with it. 

That being said though, all the things that I said about why America should buy Greenland are also true for Denmark. Though they are losing money on the territory now that might not always be true in the future. They have non-Trump reasons to oppose a sale even if that seems to be the main thrust of their argument. 

Of course there is the argument that America essentially owns Greenland in the first place. Denmark relies on the United States to defend Greenland and could do practically nothing if we decided to take it. We already have a military base there and it wouldn't take much effort to invade and conquer the country. Doing so right now isn't advisable for obvious reasons, Denmark is our ally, but in the future that might change. People who can't defend their territory tend to lose that territory eventually... 

As for the media, once again their bias is showing. It's pretty clear that this wasn't a serious proposal and more of a thought experiment in it's earliest stages. They acted like Trump was insane to suggest it, but ignore the real world reasons for wanting to do so. They are right that it isn't likely to come to pass but their bias really is out of control. 

ISIS appears to take control of a Syrian prison camp.

A woman picks clothing in al-Hol camp in Syria. National Post/AFP.

ISIS appears to take control of a Syrian prison camp holding thousands. National Post/Washington Post. 70,000 people are being held at the al-Hol camp in al-Hasakeh including 50,000 children, most of which are under the age of 12. The camp is run by American allied Syria Defense Forces but they do not seem to have the manpower to control the site and ISIS is infiltrating. 11,000 of the people held there are from other countries, many of which are refusing to repatriate or prosecute their citizens, and in some cases have already revoked their citizenship. ISIS is using the camp as a recruitment center and female ISIS members are enforcing Sharia law, up to including punishing people with death for violating their rules.  

My Comment:

A quick word on the source, this is an opinion piece and the major source is Senator Lindsey Graham. It is very obviously written in a "war hawk" neoconservative style, which is not something I usually use for a source. Unfortunately I didn't find much else so I would caution people to remember who you are reading. Their goal is very obviously an open-ended commitment to Syria that will likely never end. That's not realistic or desirable, and not something I agree with at all, but it is the viewpoint of the author and the sources of the article I cite. 

That being said, I have noted for awhile that after ISIS was defeated we were going to have problems with former ISIS fighters. Given the horrible actions these people have done and the fact that many of them could commit further crimes, it's completely understandable that the home countries don't want to take them back in. And when they do they can cause major problems in those prisons... 

This camp illustrates the problem quite clearly. If you leave thousands of former ISIS fighters and dependents back in Syria then ISIS may use those people as a recruitment station. I don't think that ISIS will actually be able to regroup with the small number of fighters left in al-Hol, as most of the people there are small children and women, but it might be a useful source of recruits as these children age into teenagers and young adults. It's also a horrible thing for those very same ISIS extremists to enforce their version of Islam in those camps. 

I do have to note that ISIS was originally founded in a US prison camp in Iraq. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was recruiting people while he was detained and once he was released he started fighting with the forerunner ISIS groups. So it's not like there isn't a risk of something like that happening again. 

However, what I disagree with is why this is America's problem. The SDF are on the ground and they should be able to handle it. I know that they fear both Turkey and the Syrian government but it's way overdue for some kind of deal to be made. The Syrian regime is never going to be overthrown and if some kind of deal could be made between the various groups fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda everyone would be better off. 

Failing that, the SDF could just shift some troops around. All it would take is a few dozen to hundred more fighters in the area and they could end this problem right away. They probably wouldn't even need American backup either but a CIA team or the Green Berets could help them with their mission until the problem is resolved if the problem were to escalate. 

Still, it's not like this prison camp is a huge threat. It's a worry yes, but the war in Syria is winding down. ISIS is largely defeated and isn't really capable of launching attacks even in Syria, let alone outside of it. There is a risk they could regroup but that is more due to the continued instability and warfare in Syria that continues. Once the war is over and the al-Nusra group is defeated, I doubt ISIS will be anything other than a bad memory in Syria. 

Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper drops out of the 2020 presidential race.

Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. Reuters.

Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has dropped out of the 2020 presidential race and is considering a run for Senate. Reuters. Hickenlooper's campaign never caught on and he rarely polled above 1% in national polling. He did not qualify for the next Democratic Debate both in number of donors and opinion polling. Hickenlooper ran a more centrist campaign which caused quite a bit of criticism from the progressive wing of the party. He was opposed to socialism and questioned why he wasn't being asked if he was going to have a man for a running mate instead of a woman. 

My Comment:

Hickenlooper never really made an impact in the 2020 race. His performance in the debates was poor at best and completely irrelevant at worst. He didn't do much with the time he was given and was overshadowed by even other irrelevant candidates like Marriane Williamson and Tim Ryan. 

Hickenlooper also positioned himself as a centrist in a party that is fleeing from the center as quickly as it can. Though he had a point that socialism isn't popular among the swing voters the Democrats would need to defeat President Trump, it was also the last thing that the progressive wing of the party wanted to hear. Hickenlooper was also prone to gaffs as his comment about wanting to be asked about running with a man instead of a woman was not what you would expect to hear from a Democratic candidate. 

Hickenlooper's biggest problem was that he was trying to go for the centrist lane when that lane was already taken by Joe Biden. Biden has almost all of the centrists wrapped up already, even after some serious gaffs and mistakes. With that lane fully occupied there wasn't really a place for Hickenlooper.

He also didn't have a signature issue like some of the other lower ranked candidates. Even now, I have no idea what Hickenlooper wanted as president. I know he is anti-gun but that's everyone in the Democratic race now and doesn't help him stand out from the crowd. 

As for his senate race, he's going up against Senator Cory Gardner. I don't know enough about Colorado politics to understand how vulnerable that seat is, but I do think that as a governor he has a chance of winning the seat. I don't see Colorado going red in 2020 so it's possible that he could be relevant. Either way he has basically no chance of ever being president. 

I personally am pleased by this. Hickenlooper is a gun-control advocate and was one of the worst candidates in the 2020 race besides Eric "nukem" Swalwell. I wonder if it's not just a coincidence that two of the most anti-gun candidates are gone?

8 people injured in Philadelphia after a drug raid turned into a gunfight and standoff.

Police stage near the site of the standoff.

At least six police officers were shot and two more people were injured after a drug raid turned into a gunfight and standoff. Fox News. Two narcotics officers were serving a search warrant when a suspect ambushed them. The two officers ran and barricaded themselves in rooms along with the four suspects in the drug raid. SWAT officers tried to raid the building but were driven back by gunfire. The suspect remains barricaded as of this writing and is continuing to fire at police officers. None of the police officers were injured severely, despite one of the cops being hit by a grazing round. The other two officers were injured in an accident and not gunfire. The two narcotics officers stuck in the building with the shooter have been rescued. The suspect also reportedly live streamed the incident on Facebook, but no video has surfaced so far. Four women were rescued from the building the attacker barricaded himself in. 

A local source has live updates.

My Comment:

It looks like this was a drug raid that went very badly for the police to say the least. One of the suspects in that raid was armed to the teeth and decided shooting it out with the cops was a better plan than surrendering. 

Thankfully, the attacker seems to be a pretty terrible shot. Six people shot and none of them were severely injured. That may have been due to body armor or due to poor marksmanship but either way it was very fortunate as this could have gone a lot worse for the police. 

It's unclear why the suspect decided to open fire on the police. Doing so is a terrible idea as his options now are to either die in a gunfight or spend the rest of his life in prison. It's possible he was drunk or high and wasn't thinking clearly. It's also possible he wasn't sure the officers were cops if they were in plainclothes. Finally, it could have been someone who just hated police and would rather die than go to prison. 

There have been reports that the incident was livestreamed on Facebook, but I haven't seen any evidence that it is true. Supposedly reporters heard that on the police scanners, but usually when something like this happens the video spreads very quickly. It's possible that the suspect only streamed to his friends but still, I'm skeptical. 

I'm not sure how I'd rate the police response in this case. It's pretty clear that they walked into an ambush, which isn't great. And the SWAT team failed to eliminate the subject. It seems like they may have screwed up pretty badly, but without more information it's unclear. I do know that Philadelphia has an overworked and understaffed police force so that might explain why they had so many problems here. 

Shootouts like this are pretty rare, even in a crime ridden city like Philadelphia. Most people when confronted by the police surrender and if they don't they usually don't try to fight it out like this. Even armed people usually don't try to fight cops as doing so usually ends in death, not escape. 

This incident is already being politicized by gun-controllers but I doubt it will last long. For one thing, the victims in this case are police officers. The left generally don't care if cops get shot and some even love it. I've seen some horrible anti-cop things posted about this shooting on Twitter already so I doubt the media will keep reporting on it. 

Secondly, the suspect is likely black. There are pictures and videos of some of the other people detained in the drug raid and they were black so it's likely that the attacker is as well. If true, I sincerely suspect that the case will drop from the news immediately as there is no "racist white male" narrative to advance. 

Finally, note that this situation is ongoing. If there are any major developments I will have another post up in the morning. But my guess is that the situation will either be resolved by the suspect surrendering (unlikely) or being shot by the cops when they find an opening or he runs out of ammo. I don't care if the suspect dies or not but I do sincerely hope that nobody else gets hurt. 

Democrat Senators threaten restructuring Supreme Court as the court considers a gun rights case.

Kristen Gillibrand is one of the senators who filed a brief. CNBC/Getty.

Democrat Senators are threatening to restructure the Supreme Court in reaction to a potential ruling on a New York City gun rights case. CNBC. The senators, who include presidential candidate Kristen Gillibrand, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumethal and minority whip Dick Durbin, all Democrats, filed a friend of the court brief. The case involves a withdrawn law in New York City that prevented gun owners from transporting firearms. In the brief, the senators attacked the NRA and other conservative intrest groups and said that the Supreme Court was beholden to their interests. 

My Comment:

It's hard to see this as anything other than an assault on the very idea of tolerance itself. The Democrats lost in 2016 and lost badly and it cost them two Supreme Court Justices. Those justices will rule against them again and again. Instead of accepting the fact that elections have consequences, they are doing whatever they can to overturn the results of the 2016 election and utterly destroy the people that oppose them. 

The Democrats realize that they will almost certainly lose the Supreme Court case from New York. That case was pretty obviously unconstitutional and would almost certainly be overturned. That's why New York City changed the law, they are desperate to prevent the case from causing a precedent that would damage further unconstitutional gun laws. It's an extremely cynical thing to do, but not quite as cynical as trying to stuff the court just because you lost an election. 

I don't think the Democrats realize how dangerous this court stuffing scheme would be. Republicans and gun owners would have no choice to see this as a direct assault on them and an effort to ensure they never had a voice again. Stuffing the Supreme Court or otherwise neutralizing the members of the court that actually respect the Constitution would be seen as an act of war. 

And that's not a metaphor. Once it's clear that there is zero respect for the rule of law there is no reason not to fight over it. If the Democrats are going to stuff the court and use a new Democrat majority to ban guns then the country is dead and we may as well burn it to the ground and start over. It's the kind of thing that could cause a lot of violence.  

The good news is that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Kristen Gillibrand is a complete joke as a candidate and a huge hypocrite. She used to love the NRA before she decided to betray her base to appeal to the big cities. She's also had two terrible debate performance, less likability than Hillary Clinton and is widely considered a failure as a presidential candidate. 

The Democrats winning in 2020 is unlikely as well. The guy that has the best chance of doing so, Joe Biden, is against any court stuffing plan and even he has very little chance of winning. Biden probably doesn't have a chance against President Trump in the first place. 

Speaking of President Trump, he's been pretty awful for gun rights lately. His bumpstock ban was terrible and he's been pushing awful red flag laws and expanded background checks that will do nothing to stop mass shootings and are ripe for abuse by the Democrats if they ever gain power again. 

That being said, compared to the Democrats, he's way better on gun rights. He isn't going after an assault weapon ban, which would almost certainly cause a civil war, and isn't trying to do blatantly horrible things like stuffing the Supreme Court. Though he hasn't been great on gun rights the gun rights community doesn't have any choice. It's either Trump or annihilation.