Another hate hoax. Girl who claimed three white boys cut her dreadlocks admits she made the story up.

Amari Allen. ABC News/WJLA.

The black student who said three white boys cut her dreadlocks admits she made the story up. ABC News. Amari Allen, a 12 year old girl, said the three boys had attacked her at recess at Immanuel Christian School in Springfield Virginia and called her hair ugly and nappy. The story prompted an investigation and threats of expulsion. However, Allen's family confessed on Monday that the incident never happened. The family apologized for the incident and said they would take responsibility for Allen's actions. 

My Comment:

This is a terrible situation. On the one hand this little girl almost ruined three little boys lives. Getting accused of a racist attack, even at such a young age, is a life ruining thing and had the story not fallen apart these boys could have been expelled or even faced criminal charges. That would probably ruin anyone's life, just as being labeled a racist would be as well. Ruining a group of  sixth grader's reputation and putting them in legal jeopardy is an extreme crime and one that should be punished severely

On the other, the accuser is only 12 years old. Though I think a 12 year old should know that doing something like this is wrong, she's still very young and may not have known how dire the consequences would be. I think she should face punishment yes, but what punishment is appropriate for this? If she was an adult I would say throw the book at her but she's just a kid. I do think it's appropriate for her and her parents to apologize for the damage they caused, but I don't think that's going to be enough for most people. 

I think the media is the true villain in this case. They have made it very clear that if you are a black person who falsely accuses white people of a racially motivated attack you can make national news, become famous and even make money from gofundme's and other crowdfunding services. Plus they have created an environment where false accusations of racism are seen as a moral good. They didn't criticize Jussie Smollet for his crime because they disagreed with what he did, just the fact he got caught. 

The media also didn't use very good judgement in this case. The story made very little sense on the face of it. People do cut off hair to humiliate people, but if they do so, they don't leave their victim with as much hair as Allen had. You cut at the root, not at the tip of the hair. It immediately looked like to me that she had cut her own hair as I thought even after the attack it looked pretty good. Her hair got slightly shorter and was still stylish, which is not what racist attackers would do if they wanted to humiliate her. Plus, I never got the impression that white people, even racist ones, care about black people's hair at all, but I have noticed that many black people are obsessed over their hair. A real racist attack would have involved violence and racist language, not an insult on hair. 

I also don't think that this story ever should have been reported in the first place. A schoolyard scuffle is not national news even if it did happen exactly the way Allen said it. I know when I was a kid I got into fights (never with anyone outside of my race though) and it would be utterly insane if that fight became international news. The things people do when they are 12 shouldn't have a global reach. I know I am being somewhat hypocritical saying that while covering the story, but I wasn't the one that put it out their in the first place. 

Finally, I think it is very important for people to wait it out on these race-based stories. So many times in the past few years the media has gotten it completely wrong, starting with Trayvon Martin. Then there was the "hands up don't shoot" Michael Brown lie, the Covington Catholic kids fabrication, the Jussie Smollet hoax and dozens of other cases based on race where it turned out the media was wrong. Better to wait until the truth comes out than jump on the bandwagon and end up with egg on your face. 

Why do they get these things wrong? Part of it is genuine racism against white people. They assume all white people secretly or openly hate black people because that's what social justice teaches, even though it's not anywhere close to being true. Part of it is just because they want to see their political enemies hurt, and right now that includes anyone with white skin or a penis who isn't on board with social justice, even if they are 6th graders. 

Most importantly the media is based on clicks and outrage generates a whole lot of them. They know that people will tune in the hear stories of racism and violence and that's way more important to them than getting to the truth. Had the media just waited on this case until an investigation was done they would have avoided all of this but they would have missed out on the money that they made from spreading the lie... 

There was also a political angle to all of this as well. Vice President Mike Pence's wife, Karen Pence, works part time at this school teaching art. I think that is part of the reason the story when viral as the media could slander Pence as a racist just because this incident happened at her school. That doesn't make much sense but it doesn't have to, people who already hate Pence will just take this as more evidence that he's racist even after it's proven the incident didn't happen. It just goes to show how utterly toxic the media environment is these days. 

Houthi rebels release footage showing hundreds of captured soldiers and vehicles

Captured soldiers in Yemen. Al-Masirah/Washington Post.

Houthi rebels have released footage of their battle where they claim to have captured or destroyed three brigades of troops. Washington Post. The rebels claim that they killed 500 troops and captured 2000 more, along with hundreds of vehicles and weapons. The footage shows ambushes of armored vehicles and hundreds of surrendering fighters. The Houthis claim that the fighters are mostly local Yemeni fighters, with some Saudi Arabian soldiers in the mix. 

The below video was released by al-Masirah, the Houthi's media/propaganda wing. It has graphic footage of the aftermath of combat and should not be viewed by more sensitive people. Also keep in mind that this is Houthi propaganda and will not be an 100% accurate accounting of the battle. 

My Comment:

Just a follow up post to yesterday's discussion on this battle. It looks like the Houthi claims are a lot more realistic than I had realized. Having watched the entire video it really does seem like they captured thousands of troops. 

However, I was under the impression that most of these troops were Saudi regulars. That's clearly not the case. There were very few Saudi Arabian soldiers mixed in with the mostly Yemeni fighters. There appeared to be some African mercenaries mixed in as well, but this wasn't a loss for the Saudi military itself. 

It was, however, a huge defeat. Hundreds, if not thousands, of soldiers surrendered and were captured with the Houthis. Many were killed as well and it looks like the Saudis lost millions of dollars worth of equipment. They lost many APC's along with a lot of advanced equipment and firearms. 

As for the battle itself it looks like the Saudi coalition walked into an ambush and handled it very poorly. I'm not military expert but I do know that when you get caught in an ambush you are supposed to rush through it, but the forces involved failed to do so. Indeed, in many cases it looked more like a traffic jam than a true battle. Unable to get out of the kill zone the Saudi APC's and trucks were damaged and destroyed. 

That's when the retreat turned into a rout. Some of the vehicles ended up with flat tires and couldn't escape. Others crashed while trying to speed out of the ambush, including a few that flipped over. And many more were just abandoned by their drivers and passengers, leaving stacks of weapons and equipment behind. 

It also almost seems like these troops were left out to dry. They didn't really seem to have any heavy equipment like tanks and they did not get much in the way of air or artillery support.They did have a few airstrikes launched to protect them but they didn't appear to do much to save them. 

In the combat footage that I saw it seems like the Saudi coalition did very little in terms of effective return fire. I didn't see any infantry firing back and only one of the APC's I saw fired. The APC's and other combat vehicles were also severely hampered by the fact that they all had dozens of men hanging off of them. That made it very hard to return fire.  

Overall this was not a good showing by the Saudi's and their allies. In my estimate they had the arms and equipment to fight their way out of this ambush but failed miserably to do so. I think the real problem was the lack of leadership and the poor quality of the troops involved in the incident. I don't think there is an army in the world who could have gotten through that battle without casualties, but the better trained ones wouldn't have hundreds dead and thousands surrendered. 

As for the Houthi's this is going to be a gamechanger victory for them. They have eliminated a large number of enemy fighters. Though I do think that there estimates are probably inflated a bit, they did eliminate a large enemy unit and captured a massive amount of equipment. Plus they massively embarrassed their enemies. 

I've always been impressed at how effective the Houthi rebels have been. They are good fighters and surprisingly well equipped. They seem well trained as well as I saw many of them actually aiming their rifles, a rarity in Middle Eastern combat. I think they will serve as a model for other insurgent groups in the future. 

Houthi rebels claim to have captured three entire brigades of Saudi Arabian troops.

Houthi Rebels in Northern Yemen. BBC/Reuters.

Houthi rebels claim to have captured three entire brigades of Saudi Arabian troops in a major border clash. BBC. The Houthis claim that thousands of troops have been captured and many killed as well. They claim that the operation was the biggest since the war began. The Houthis say the captured soldiers will be paraded on television soon. The Saudis have not confirmed any of the Houthi claims. The Saudis are still reeling from an attack blamed on Iran but claimed by the Houthis that destroyed their major oil processing facility. 

My Comment:

It's unclear if this report is reliable or not. The Saudi's don't appear to be saying much of anything at all. You would think they would have said something one way or the other but it appears to not be the case. 

It's possible that the Houthis are exaggerating their victory or making the whole thing up. Propaganda has always been a thing and the Houthis have every motivation to lie. And the numbers involved seem ridiculous. Saudi Arabia only has around 10 or 11 brigades of combat troops. Three brigades would be a significant portion of Saudi Arabia's armed forces and it's almost unbelievable that they could lose that many troops. Though, it's unclear if the brigades were solely made up of Saudi troops. Other countries in the region are fighting with the Saudis and I've heard reports that mercenaries may have been involved as well. 

However, the silence from the Saudis is telling. If the story didn't have any truth to it they would be telling every news organization in the world that the Houthis are lying. As of this writing though, I can't find any comment at all.

That makes me think that something terrible has happened to the Saudis. They might not have lost three entire brigades but it sure sounds like they have at least suffered a massive defeat. Many of those troops were likely captured or surrendered as well. I think something happened but it's unclear exactly what it is. But I am sure it involves a major military defeat for the Saudis. 

If the rumors are even partially true than the status quo in the region has been upended. The defeat of three brigades by a group of rebels is a huge challenge to the military supremacy of the Saudis in the region. The destruction of three bridges would be a major loss of manpower and equipment for Saudi Arabia that wouldn't be easily replaced. 

And this incident comes after the Saudi Arabian economy was wrecked by the Iranian drone/missile attack that crippled their oil production. They are in a very dangerous situation where not only have they been humiliated by their Iranian enemies on two fronts. 

It seems pretty clear that the Iranians have taken the upper hand in their conflict with the Saudis. It's clear that the Saudi's cannot defend their borders and their economy. And it sure sounds like they have been defeated on the battlefield. It makes me worry that the Saudis might do something desperate...

I do think that the Houthis are a very good example of hybrid warfare. They are experts in both conventional and unconventional warfare. They are a group of rebels that have managed to gain access to high tech strategic weapons like ballistic missiles and drones. It's little wonder that they have given the Saudis so much trouble. 

New gun control laws are likely dead in congress due to the impeachment inquiry.

Senator Chris Murphy. Politico/Getty.

Member of congress feel that new gun control legislation is dead due to the focus on the impeachment inquiry. Politico. With Senator Chris Murphy (D) endorsing impeachment, it seems clear that no deal will be made with President Trump on gun control laws. The co-sponsors of the background check bill, Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) both admit that things have slowed down. The chances of a deal were poor before the impeachment push but seem to be totally dead now, even as some argue that congress could do two things at once. 

The Democrats are so focused on hurting the Republican Party and the President that they are unable to get anything done because of it, including legislation on gun safety, lowering of prescription drug prices, infrastructure, etc. So bad for our Country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2019

My Comment:

Looks like the Democrats have really shot themselves in the foot with this impeachment push. They had a real chance of getting something done on gun rights but now that's completely dead. There is basically no chance of President Trump working with Democrats when they are actively trying to remove him from office over nothing. 

Of course, this doesn't affect the gun control laws, it's everything that congress was working on. Other Democrat priorities, such as climate change, health care and immigration aren't going to be worked on either. And there will be no effort to solve bipartisan priorities like a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico. Everything is on the back burner right now. 

This is amazing news for gun rights supporters. Many of us had given up hope that we would escape this session of congress without a massive new infringement on our rights. Trump was looking somewhat squishy on the issue and there was a huge media push to bash guns. I had assumed that at the very least we would have legislation on red flag laws. 

Instead it looks like nothing will happen at all. Even if there is another mass shooting, or even a couple of them, there is no chance that any of the parties involved with each other will come to an agreement. 

One of the biggest advantages of our political system is how dysfunctional it all is. That makes gun laws a lot harder to pass as public outrage passes very fast. However, gun control legislation takes a long time to craft and it's almost impossible to get anything passed before the public gets outraged against something else. 

Of course, this doesn't mean much long term. Sooner or later this impeachment drama will be over (probably by the end of this year) and congress might move on something. I doubt anything will get done before the 2020 election but after that all bets are off. But for the time being things look up for the first time in a long time. 

As for the impeachment inquiry, it has been an absolute joke. The media is trying to sell President Trump as having somehow broken the law but by releasing the transcript Trump blew a hole in their plans. The whistleblower complaint was blown out by the transcript and it seems clear that political bias motivated it in the first place. 

Furthermore, John Solomon at The Hill released a massive trove of documents that show how involved with Ukraine Joe Biden really was. I haven't had time to review the documents myself but it does seem pretty damning for Biden. It seems insane to me that the Democrats expect the American people to get mad at President Trump attempting to expose corruption at this level. Biden's campaign is probably done and the impeachment inquiry will likely go nowhere. 

My thoughts on the release of the Trump/Zelensky phone call transcript and the impeachment inquiry.

As you are almost certainly aware the conversation between President Donald Trump and President Volodymer Zelensky has been released. The conversation was cited by a "whistleblower" and was used by Nancy Pelosi to start an impeachment inquiry. You can read the entire conversation above by opening the image in a new tab or by looking at the scribd link below. 

What's my take on it? The Democrats and Nancy Pelosi screwed up. Massively. They had made it sound like this phone call was so damning that it was worth impeaching President Trump over. They had said that Trump had threatened Zelensky by withholding aid and that there was a quid pro quo deal arranged. 

Instead what we got was a fairly normal conversation between two leaders. Indeed, it seemed like the vast majority of the call was pleasantries and the normal non-critical things that happen when two people talk to each other. Indeed, I am guessing that the media will downplay how much Zelensky and Trump praised each other. It looks like they really like each other. 

As for Joe Biden and his scandal it took a long time to get to it. It was almost an afterthought and you can tell that it wasn't at all the main point of the conversation. It mostly was about the prosecutor that was fired and the scandal surrounding that. He didn't threaten or demand that Zelensky investigate it at all. Indeed, it looks like Joe Biden's own actions where he bragged about getting the prosecutor fired on video (see yesterdays post) launched this whole affair. 

There is zero evidence of any deal or any kind of quid pro quo. Trump did ask him to investigate but it wasn't conditional in anyway. And given that the initial subject of the conversation was dealing with corruption it's clear that that was the thrust of the conversation, not helping Trump out in 2020. 

Much more interesting is the discussion on the CrowdStrike server. As you may know CrowdStrike was in charge of security for the DNC server. They are the ones that said that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC server and revealing that Hillary Clinton and the DNC colluded to screw over Bernie Sanders. However, the server itself disappeared and was never examined by outside experts. 

If President Trump is right and Ukrainians have the CrowdStrike server it could be a gamechanger. I've always thought that the idea that Russia was responsible for the DNC leak was a joke. The top theory is that it was an insider that did it, possibly murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich. Julian Assange strongly implied that he was the source for the DNC leak and offered a reward for information that lead to an arrest in the case. If we can get that server we might blow the lid of off the biggest scandal in American history. 

As for the politics of this situation it's clear that the Democrats and the Media are panicking. The most common refrain I have heard is that the transcript is fake or has been edited. There isn't any evidence of that whatsoever. They are now demanding a recording of the conversation which probably doesn't exist. It makes zero sense that this would be edited as there was some embarrassing stuff in the transcript, including President Trump and President Zelensky insulting German Chancellor Angela Merkel. 

Other people are continuing to insist that there really was a quid pro quo despite there being no evidence of it. I can't think of any reason to believe that other than people suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Some people are just so invested in trying to get President Trump that they will believe whatever they want. Furthermore, it isn't clear at all that Zelensky is actually investigating the Bidens. 

I think that Nancy Pelosi will have to back down. She sold her impeachment inquiry as the thing that would finally get President Trump. But now it looks like her party is the one that is going to have problems. Joe Biden might have to shut down his campaign if what he bragged about is true and it seems clear that the whole Russia house of cards will collapse even further. I don't think she will withdraw her impeachment inquiry but if she moves on it now after this story fell apart she will be screwed. 

Ukraine Call Transcript by Fox News on Scribd

Nancy Pelosi launches impeachment inquiry over Ukraine story.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Congressional photo.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has launched an impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine story. The Hill. Pelosi argues that President Trump's conversation with Ukraine's President over the Joe Biden corruption scandal was impeachment worthy. A "whistle-blower", who did not review the conversation, has been blocked from testifying. The move is hugely controversial and risky for the Demcorats as impeachment is unpopular among Republicans and independents. The move is largely one of optics as there will be little change in day to day operations. 

As for President Trump, he is working quickly to counter the claims made by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. He will release the IG report and the "whistle-blower" complaint by the end of the week. He had already said that the transcript between himself and President Zelensky would be released tomorrow. Trump claims that the real scandal is that Joe Biden threatened Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son who was involved in an Ukrainian energy company. Biden is on video confirming he did indeed threaten to withdraw money if they didn't fire the prosecutor. 

  My Comment:

The above videos show the Joe Biden admission that he threatened to withdraw $1 billion in aid if he didn't fire the prosecutor in the Ukraine case. The top video is the primary source from the CFR, and the bottom is the moment itself. I put up both videos in case the 2nd one gets a copyright claim or something, plus the CFR closed comments making it difficult to find the specific moment. Either way, Biden's words are clear, he threatened to withdraw money from Ukraine.

Somehow this scandal was turned into the media into an anti-Trump story. Their theory is that President Trump threatened Ukrainian President Zelensky the same way that Biden did. Even if that was true, and there is no evidence that it is, why is it wrong for Trump to do so but not for Joe Biden? There is no consistency here whatsoever.

However, there is also no evidence that President Trump did anything wrong. There is no evidence of a quid-pro-quo with Ukraine. Trump's going to release the transcript, the IG report and the whistle blower complaint and if there as anything at all incriminating there he wouldn't. That means that this whole scandal is a nothing burger. Furthermore, the whistle blower did not actually observe the phone call or review the transcript directly. The whole thing is based on nothing but hearsay. 

So why did Pelosi make this announcement? It seems utterly insane. The polling I have seen shows little support for impeachment, with what little support there is largely among Democrats. And previous impeachment attempts have failed miserably. Bill Clinton was famously impeached for perjury and his approval rating rose. It massively hurt the GOP back then just like this will hurt the Democrats as well.

Furthermore, the case for impeachment is very unclear. It's not illegal to ask another country to investigate a crime, especially if that crime involves corruption involving American politicians. A quid-pro-quo might be more objectionable but I don't think it's illegal unless it involves money changing hands between the major players. There isn't even a hint of that happening here. 

And even if the scandal doesn't blow up tomorrow when the transcript is released, there is little chance of anything happening. All Pelosi has done is set up an inquiry, which is a first step, but it's still a very long way from an actual impeachment in the Senate. And there is no way that Pelosi will get the 67 votes she needs to get actually remove Trump. Not to mention the fact that actually "winning" would likely lead to a civil war.

That being said, I think this is all internal Democrat politics and only involves President Trump tangentially. Pelosi knows that impeachment is a horrible move for the Democrats but she is under immense pressure from the progressive members of the party. "The Squad" has been extremely vocal about impeachment and are furious with Pelosi anyways. This seems like an effort to placate those voices without actually doing anything.

Joe Biden's 2020 race might be involved as well. Though I still say that Biden has the best chance of beating President Trump (ie almost zero), he's a scandal ridden man who is a gaffe machine. But more importantly progressive hate him. They want him to go down and they know that Ukraine scandal will likely sink him. The fact that it also damages President Trump is just a bonus to them. 

I think that President Trump played this well. He made the Democrats commit to something without really having all that much in the way of information. As of this writing only he knows he and Zelensky know what they talked about and it seems like he made an elaborate trap for the Democrats. If the transcript blows this scandal up he's golden. 

He's probably going to win in 2020 on this issue alone, even if he did something wrong. People are sick and tired of the Democrats constantly attacking President Trump. The only reprieve we have had since he started to run is when the focused on Brett Kavanaugh and the two days where the media loved him after he bombed Syria. Only hardcore Democrats even care anymore and the rest of us are just so very tired with the whole thing. Especially since we've already did the same song and dance with the Russia scandal. That plot failed horribly just like this one will as well. 

Haiti Senator opens fire on protesters, wounding an AP photojournalist.

Senator Jean Marie Ralph Féthière after opening fire with his pistol. BBC/Reuters.

A senator in Haiti opened fire at protesters wounding an AP photojournalist. BBC. The journalist was hit in the face with bullet fragments. A security guard was also injured in the incident. The journalist was not severely injured but it is unknown what the status of the guard is. Senator Jean Marie Ralph Féthière claimed that he was defending himself from the crowd and that he had a right to self defense. Another senator said that he had issued a verbal warning before opening fire. The protests were about fuel shortages, inflation and corruption. 

My Comment:

Though the day to day concerns of Haiti's government are of little concern to the rest of the world, I do think this was a crazy story. It's not every day where a sitting elected official shoots two people, including a journalist. It's bizarre to say the least.

Was it a good shooting? It's hard to tell. I am not expert of the laws of Haiti. I do know that they have mid tier gun laws. They have strict background checks and don't have as many freedoms as Americans. But they do have CCW permits and open carry. As for self defense laws, I haven't been able to find much information.  

But in America would this have been a good shooting? Probably not. It didn't look like anyone was attacking the senator. There was some shouting and intimidation but it didn't look like anyone was armed or even charging the senator. Indeed, as soon as he drew his gun they started to run, right before he opened fire. Maybe pulling the gun was slightly justified, after all, we don't know what lead up to this moment, but I saw nothing that justified opening fire. 

He also shot indiscriminately. He wasn't aiming at a threat he was just emptying his gun randomly. There was an extreme chance of an innocent person getting hurt and it looks like at least two people did get hurt. It didn't even look like warning shots as he wasn't shooting into the air, but shooting into the ground. 

I also don't think that the senator feared for his life. If he did, he would have shot the threat, not indiscriminately. He would also would have avoided emptying his gun or would have reloaded after he did so. He may have been annoyed or even a little scared, but not so much that he should have opened fire.

Of course, my reading of the situation may be wrong. What he did might have been legal under Haiti's gun laws. I know in many non-American countries warning shots are allowed. I think this is a good reason why those laws are pretty dumb. You shouldn't fire unless you have a target and your life is in danger. The two innocent bystanders who got shot here are a good example of why those laws don't work. Even if what he did was legally allowed it was still morally wrong and uncalled for. 

I also don't know if Senator Féthière will face any justice for this incident. I'm not familiar with the laws in Haiti so what he did may have been legal. And even if it isn't, Haiti is a notoriously corrupt country. He may very well get off with a warning or even less.  

President Trump and Indian Prime Minster Narendra Modi hold massive rally in Houston Texas.

President Donald Trump and Prime Minster Narendra Modi at the Houston "Howdy Modi" event. 

President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minster Narendra Modi held a massive rally in Houston Texas. Politico. More than 50,000 Indian Americans showed up to see the two world leaders. The event is thought to be the largest event ever held for a foreign world leader in America. Both Modi and Trump praised each other and even walked together with their hands clasped. The event shows how President Trump and the Republicans are trying to make inroads in the Indian American community, which counts 1.4 million registered voters. 80% of Indian Americans voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Trump is hoping that he can peel of some of those voters. Trump's relationship with Modi has been positive, despite kicking India out of a preferred trade partner program. However, the two leaders hope to sign a new trade agreement this week. 

My Comment:

First a note on the crowd size. The media is reporting 50,000 people and that's how many tickets were given out. However, the Texans stadium seats 72,000 and it looked pretty full to me. It probably wasn't at full capacity but I do thin that it was significantly more than 50,000 people. 

I think it's pretty clear that most of the Indian Americans that arrived were here for Prime Minster Modi. He's very popular in India and just won reelection. Indeed, he's pretty similar to Donald Trump as he is a populist nationalist who had a popular slogan (Make America Great Again and Make in India). Many Indians love him and it's no surprise that he got such a turnout. 

It's a bit more surprising that President Trump is making a play for Indian Americans. They have been traditionally a group of Democrat loyalists. They are highly educated and occasionally face discrimination. They aren't a typical choice for targeting by the GOP.

But I think it does make sense to make a play for them. Indians are very active in business and President Trump's tax cuts have been good for them. I am guessing some of them hold resentment for illegal aliens as well as the vast majority of Indian Americans came here the legal way. 

Furthermore, it's pretty clear that the Democrats aren't doing much to hold onto Indian Americans. I can't see any Democrats going to an event like this. Indeed, I kinda get the feeling that the Democrats just assume that all minorities will just stay with them forever and that they don't need to do anything to keep them. 

It's clear that President Trump isn't going to rest on his laurels though. He is going after every minority group he can. And I think in 2020 he will be able to peel some of those voters away from the Democrats. Part of this is his own personal charisma. Some of it is the fact that the Democrats are taking their voters for granted. But I also think that their focus on identity politics is damaging their cause. Though President Trump often puts his foot in his mouth his vision of an united America is more appealing that the progressive stack where identity is the only important thing. 

And I think that's the message President Trump sent at this event. By appearing with Modi he's telling these Indian Americans that they are accepted. He's telling these people that they belong here and that they are accepted. That's a better message than what the Democrats are giving, which is either "we will take care of you after we take care of the black Muslim transgender demisexual transracial illegal aliens" or "who are you again?" 

If President Trump takes even 10% more of Indian Americans it could be very important. Though I don't think Texas is in play, Indian Americans do live in swing states. If Trump does nothing but keep his original voters and take 10% more Indian Americans, he will win for sure and probably pick up a couple of states. 

Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke's gun confiscation plan has alarmed some Democrats.

Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke. Gage Skidmore. 

Some Democrats are pushing back against Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke's plan to confiscate AR-15's and AK-47's. The Hill. These Democrats say that the GOP and gun groups will be able to fund raise off of him. The NRA has already declared the former congressman the AR-15 salesman of the month. The proposal has also damaged proposals for stricter gun control, such as bans on private sales or "Red Flag" laws. Senate Minority leader Charles "Chuck" Schumer dismissed the plan saying he did not know any other Democrats who agreed with it. Senator Joe Manchin was a lot more vocal saying that O'Rourke wasn't going to take his guns away. 

My Comment:

This isn't really new news, but there wasn't much else going on. The backlash against O'Rourke's statements at the debate was immediate and hasn't abated at all. O'Rourke has been bashed by both sides of the political spectrum for his plan to confiscate AR-15's and AK-47's. It's not suprising that the Democrats are almost as mad about it as the Republicans. 

I think in a few cases the disagreement is genuine. Joe Manchin's objections seem legitimate as he has always been one of the more reasonable Democrats. And more than a few people I know in real life who generally vote for Democrats were enraged by O'Rourke's plan as they feel taking people's guns away is horrific, even if they do want more gun control laws in general. 

But I think in many other cases the objection is a question of tactics and timing. There are many people on the left, including Chuck Schumer, who hate private gun ownership and don't respect the 2nd amendment but are furious with O'Rourke. 

Why? Because they had an opportunity to pass some invasive and damaging gun laws and it seems likely that O'Rourke torpedoed them. There were many Republicans who were under pressure to "do something" after recent mass shootings but they just got the perfect excuse to not betray their constituents. 

As a gun rights supporter I think I should almost thank O'Rourke. He absolutely poisoned the well for new gun control laws nationally. He revealed what the Democrats really want and will ensure that any attempts at national gun control laws will be pushed back against. 

I also think that he has galvanized gun rights groups. The NRA in particular has been scandal prone lately and many gun owners are questioning why they are even supporting an organization that is so poorly run. With O'Rourke pretty much confirming everyone's worst fears about the Democrats, the NRA has a nice distraction and fundraising opportunity. 

The gun control push that was started with the most recent mass shootings is probably dead now. The environment O'Rourke created isn't going to help things. I am sure the Democrats think that O'Rourke was incredibly selfish as he completely torpedoed their chances to pass new gun laws. 

And he did it for basically no reason. O'Rourke was fading in the polls and was an afterthought in the 2020 primaries. He wanted to create a lane for himself and I think he did but he doesn't have a realistic chance of winning. He basically killed gun control for the recent future all because he was too proud to drop out of the race like he should have. 

To be fair though, I do think it's kind of frustrating that O'Rourke is the only one getting blame and criticism here. Many of the other 2020 candidates support a gun buyback and at the very least Kamala Harris has said she would make it mandatory. O'Rourke's beliefs aren't super uncommon among the Democrats but the media is making it sound like only he is off the reservation. I think that's off base and the entire party deserves criticism when it comes to gun rights. 

Justin Trudeau's party plots ban, confiscation of semi-auto rifles and handgun bans.

Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau. CBC/The Canadian Press.

Justin Trudeau's liberal party is proposing a ban and confiscation of semi-auto rifles and allowing municipalities to fully ban handguns. CBC. The ban would include the popular AR-15 rifle along with many others. The liberals would institute a "buyback" confiscation scheme that would pay owners to turn their rifles in. With at least 250,000 semi-auto's in Canada, paying a fair market value for the rifles would cost $600 million. Additional laws regarding ammunition and red flag laws have been proposed as well. The conservative party opposes new gun laws and accused Trudeau of proposing the laws to distract from various scandals rocking his election campaign. It is important to note that any laws would be put into place after the next election. 

My Comment:

It's hard not to see this as anything but a cynical attempt to distract the media from Trudeau's blackface scandal, which has now risen to three different photographs. By proposing this law, which goes further than any other gun control laws in Canada, he is trying to control the conversation away from the scandal that threatens to bring down his party. 

The law is similar to what Robert Francis O'Rourke and Kamala Harris are proposing here in America, and I wonder if he didn't draw inspiration to them. Both candidates were and are collapsing in the polls but it did get them a lot of positive media coverage. The very same media that would normally be bashing Trudeau for perceived racism are now praising him for his "brave" stance on betraying the rights of his people. 

Will it become a reality? If the liberals win in the next election, I do think that it will likely happen. The left globally hates the idea of civilian gun ownership as the left is primarily about power these days. They don't want anyone to have any but themselves but gun ownership obviously tips the balance in favor of the people as opposed to the elite. They will do almost anything to take the right to keep and bear arms away wherever it still exists. 

Would the people of Canada go along with this if it happened? I am not sure. Canada has a strong gun culture but it's different than America's. I do believe if something like this passed in the United States you would see almost universal resistance and possibly violence if the government was stupid enough to go door to door. 

Canada though? I'm not sure. I think there is enough overlap between the American gun rights community and the Canadian one that there would be some resistance for sure. And I also think fewer people would turn their guns in than they did in New Zealand (which was in fact very low). But I also don't think that there would be the kind of universal resistance and armed uprising you would see in the United States. 

However, I do think Canada's brothers to the south would have a real problem if they passed this law. I'd consider it an act of bravery to smuggle arms into Canada if it comes to fighting their government and if fighting were to break out, not likely but possible, many Americans would cross the border to fight the Canadian government. 

That being said, I don't think that this becomes law because Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are likely to lose in the next election. That was true before the blackface scandal rocked his party. What happens beyond that I don't know but I think for now the limited remaining rights of gun owners in Canada are safe. 

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio drops out of 2020 presidential race.

Mayor Bill de Blasio. NBC News.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has dropped out of the 2020 Democratic primary race. NBC News. De Blasio admitted that the time was not right as he announced his withdrawal on MSNBC. He did not offer an endorsement for any of the remaining candidates. His campaign never took off with most polling showing him at or below 1% and even most New York citizens disagreed with his run. He also had many unforced errors that torpedoed his campaign before it really began, most notably not returning from the campaign after a major power outage hit New York City. President Donald Trump chimed in, mocking the Mayor, who has been a long term foe of the President. 

Oh no, really big political news, perhaps the biggest story in years! Part time Mayor of New York City, @BilldeBlasio, who was polling at a solid ZERO but had tremendous room for growth, has shocking dropped out of the Presidential race. NYC is devastated, he’s coming home!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2019

My Comment:
Yet another withdrawal from the 2020 race. I am honestly surprised that de Blasio lasted as long as he did. He didn't make any sort of impact in either of the debates he participated in and didn't even qualify for the 3rd debate. And unlike some of the other candidates that didn't make the 3rd debate, he generated basically zero buzz for the entire run. The only time he made the news at all is when he screwed up, which isn't the way to win an election.

Part of the problem is that de Blasio never had the media presence that previous New York Mayors have had. Both Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg are national figures that are widely recognized across the country. Not all of that recognition is good but I am guessing most of the people in flyover country barely know who de Blasio is and what he wants to do for the country.

He never really had a lane to pick either. Both the centrist position and the far left socialist positions are filled. Kamala Harris had the woke lane filled up and both Eric Swalwell and Robert Francis O'Rourke had filled the gun confiscation lane. He didn't have a signature issue to campaign on and was mostly an afterthought.

President Trump is clearly delighted to see de Blasio's campaign fail. The two had spared for awhile now and I think President Trump hates what de Blasio has done to his home town. Though in most circumstances a 2nd rate candidate dropping out early in the race wouldn't rate a tweet, given the two men's personal history, it would be strange if he didn't do so.

I think de Blasio's biggest mistake was not returning to New York when they had the major power outage. That outraged New York City and did nothing to help him with Democratic primary voters. People want to vote for someone who will be there when a disaster hits and it was pretty clear that de Blasio didn't rise to the occasion.

The field is narrowing considerably and I fully expect a few more 2020 Democrats to drop out. There are so many no-name candidates left that I honestly can't believe some of them are still there. I mean does anyone seriously believe that people like Joe Sestak or Michael Bennet are going to win the race? I personally think that everyone who didn't make the third debate besides Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson should have dropped out already, and even some of the candidates who did make the third debate, like Amy Klobucher and Robert Francis O'Rourke, should drop out as well.

As for de Blasio's political career, I think it's on the decline. He easily won both his races for Mayor but I don't know if he will do so again in 2021. His presidential campaign left a bad taste in his mouth and even the famously liberal New York City may have gotten sick of him. I sincerely hope that he does lose his election and we never have to hear from him again.

New Jersey man arrested for scouting targets for Hezbollah.

The New York Stock Exchange was one of the targets scouted. ABC News/AP.

A New Jersey man has been arrested for scouting terror targets for Hezbollah. ABC News. Alexei Saab joined Hezbollah in 1996 and participated in operations against Israel in Lebanon. He was trained in firearm use and how to make explosives. Saab entered the United States in 2000 and was granted citizenship in 2005. Saab's intelligence history was put to use in the Untied States where he scouted targets in New York, looking for vulnerabilities to exploit. Saab was charged with multiple terrorism and immigration charges. The immigration charges come from a sham marriage that was used to gain citizenship. Saab also attempted to kill an Israeli spy in Lebanon in 2003 but failed when his gun failed to fire. 

My Comment:

I am guessing that Alexei Saab is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Iranian spooks in the United States. Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, has cells active in the United States and I am guessing there are a lot of other sympathizers for the Iranian government in the Iranian expat community. 

Indeed, on of my great worries of any potential conflict between the United States and Iran (or even Saudi Arabia and Iran with minimal to no involvement from America) is terror attacks launched by Hezbollah. Hezbollah is one of the world's most active and powerful terror groups and they have many battle hardened veterans in the various campaigns in the Middle East. 

The good news is that Trump's travel ban includes Iran. That makes it much more difficult to get new terrorists into the United States. They still have many dozens or even hundreds of operatives that entered America under less strict immigration. However, those terrorists are on their own and cannot be easily reinforced. 

Speaking of immigration, it's clear that Alexei Saab should have never been let into the country in the first place. He was a member of Hezbollah and had been active with them for a long time. He even tried to assassinate an Israeli spy. Plus he committed immigration fraud. He should have never been let into the country or he should have been deported a long time ago. 

I think that there will be additional arrests. As tensions with Iran increase, it's only natural that law enforcement and counterintelligence would begin to focus on Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies. They are an obvious threat and could be ordered to attack at any time. 

Though the threat of a Hezbollah attack in America is fairly high, I think it would be much worse in Europe. They don't have the travel ban that we have in America and I doubt their Iranian immigrants are as integrated as the ones in America. Americans in Europe and our instillation there should probably keep their alert level up.  

If a battle or war between America and Iran I think it's almost certain that there would be Hezbollah attacks in America. These attacks would either be explosive based, assassinations and gunman attacks. It's even possible that these attacks could include nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. It's even possible that Iran could start a conflict with their Hezbollah proxies launching an attack before any conflict began... 

Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau caught up in blackface scandal.

The yearbook showing Trudeau in blackface. Time.

Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau faces new scandal as a 2001 photo of him in blackface has been released. Time. The photo was taken at a 2001 gala dinner for the private school Trudeau taught at. It was an "Arabian Nights" themed event but only Trudeau had darkened his skin. The photo emerges when the embattled Prime Minster is preparing for an election. Trudeau has been criticized for racial insensitivity before. 

My Comment:

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one had, I despise Justin Trudeau and what he does to Canada. He's been a terrible Prime Minster and is exactly the kind of social justice warrior that pushes PC crap on other people. To see him get burned by the very fire he was pouring gasoline on is more than a little satisfying. 

On the other, I have never understood the objection to blackface. It always seemed like a major restriction of free speech. Sure it may make people uncomfortable, but most speech makes someone uncomfortable. I hate the heckler's veto in general but in this case it seems like special pleading. Nobody criticized "White Girls" when two black men dressed up as white women. Well, plenty of people did but not because of that, it was a terrible movie... 

I also think that photos from 18 years ago should be off limits. It's practically a lifetime ago and people change in almost two decades. Just because Trudeau thought it was ok to do so 18 years ago doesn't mean he does so today. I am sure pretty much everyone has skeletons in their closets if you go far enough back into the past. 

I do have to question Trudeau's judgement. Saudi Arabians aren't black, they have white skin pretty much. Though they aren't generally considered white, they certainly aren't black either. Coloring his skin doesn't even make much sense.  

And even in 2001, among the liberal elite, blackface wasn't something that would fly, even if you are impersonating an Arab as opposed to a black man. Trudeau was the son of a Prime Minster so he might have thought he could have gotten away with it. And to be fair, until now, he did. 

Will this hurt Trudeau's election chances? I think so. Many Canadians are upset with him. Polling has about 2/3rds of Canadians either strongly or moderately disprove of his performance. Many of the ones that do still approve of him are the very same kind of social justice warriors who hate blackface in the first place. 

I kind of think that Justin Trudeau's political career is over. He's been a terrible Prime Minster and he just pissed off the last group of people that would ever vote for him. I am guessing that after the 2019 Canadian elections, Justin Trudeau's party will lose and lose hard. 

Georgia home owner responds to robbery and shooting attempt with his own firearm, killing the wood be teenage robbers.

Police stand near the scene of the shooting. USA Today/AP.

A Georgia home owner responded to a robbery and shooting attempt with his own firearm, killing three teenagers. USA Today. The teenagers were wearing masks and attempted to rob three people who were standing in their yard. One of the teens opened fire and the homeowner returned fire, killing the three teenagers who were aged 15, 16 and 16. None of the robbery victims were injured and no charges have been filed with police saying the shooting was justified due to Georgia's stand your ground laws. A local witness reported that the teenagers were armed with a handgun and the homeowner had an "assault rifle". 

My Comment:

This story is making the rounds on social media and I fear it might turn into another George Zimmerman situation. The usual internet suspects are saying that this shooting was not justified and are claiming that the young would be robbers are innocent teens that were shot while trying to flee. Though the race of the homeowner hasn't been revealed but the teens were all black, which brings a racial angle into as well. 

However, it seems very clear that the homeowner was totally justified in shooting back. In pretty much any jurisdiction in America it's ok to return fire at someone who is actively shooting at you. Given that there were three robbers and it was dark, I think the home owner was more that justified in shooting all three. He didn't know if they were armed as well and even if they weren't they could have recovered the original attacker's gun. 

I think this case also shows why AR's (or whatever the defender used) are useful for self defense. In a situation with more than one attacker capacity is king. If he was armed with something like a break action shotgun, or worse off, nothing at all, it's very possible that the wrong three people could have died. Of course I haven't seen a source that confirmed that the defender had an AR. An eyewitness said he did but eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to weapons. 

That being said, I do fear that this case could take it off in the wrong way. Both gun rights and race are huge issues in America right now and I think the media could push this if they wanted to attack both. Most of the articles I have read have been fair though so perhaps things won't work out that way. 

I personally don't have a problem with what happened here at all. Indeed, I think these teens got what they deserved. Shooting armed robbers who open fire on people just hanging out in their yard isn't a problem it's a solution... 

US intelligence agencies say that the Saudi Arabia oil attack was launched from Iran.

Smoke rises from the damaged oil station. NBC News/Reuters.

US intelligence agencies say that Saudi Arabia oil attack was launched from Iran near the border with Iraq. NBC News. According to NBC's sources, Iran launched cruise missiles from at least one site in Iran. The attack knocked out 5% of global oil production which is around 5 million barrels a day. The Saudis also said there was evidence that Iranian weapons were used in the attacks. Iran has officially denied responsibility for the attacks and Yemen's Houthi Rebels have taken credit for it. President Trump has not decided what his response will be as he is waiting for more evidence of responsibility but also says he does not want war. 

My Comment:

Just a quick update to a recent post. In that post I said that the Houthi's are likely responsible for the attack. However the US government says something else. If cruise missiles were used in the attack that pretty much rules out the Houthis. Though they are extremely well armed for a militia, they have ballistic missiles for crying out loud, but they don't have cruise missiles. 

However, US intelligence has been very wrong before. They had insisted, for example, that the Iraqi's had an active chemical weapons program. They did have a few old and obsolete weapons hidden in the desert but did not have an active program. It's very possible that they are wrong here again. 

President Trump seems to realize this and is downplaying threats of war. He was rock solid proof that the Iranians are responsible for this attack and even if it is found that they were responsible it sounds like he doesn't want to order strikes. My guess is that if it is up to him there won't be a war. 

However, it might not be up to him. I don't know if the Saudis would act without US support but it is a possibility. This was a major blow to their economy and they almost certainly want revenge. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been locked into a proxy war with each other in Yemen for quite some time now and the Iranian proxies there have launched multiple attacks against the country. Saudi Arabia may finally reach the end of their patience. 

The Iranians might have their own thoughts about the issue as well. It seems clear that they don't want peace. They won't talk to President Trump and if they did launch this attack they are escalating quickly. It's very possible they could launch follow up attacks which would draw a response. 

Why would the Iranians want to do this? Because sanctions are destroying their economy. The Iranians can't care for their people and they fear that they may revolt. If they do the leadership will likely be killed. With the stakes that high they might think a limited war against the Saudis would be a better choice. 

Still, I think that the status quo is the most likely outcome. President Trump doesn't want war and I don't think the Saudis want war either. My guess is that this attack will go unpunished. I still say that war is unlikely and even if there is any military action it will be extremely limited in nature. 

President Trump is making a play for New Mexico.

President Donald Trump. Politico/AP.

President Trump is making a play for New Mexico, starting with a rally in Rio Rancho. Politico. A Republican presidential candidate hasn't won New Mexico since 1992, but the President believes that it's five electoral votes are up for grabs. New Mexico is full of Hispanics which could pose a problem for Trump, but he had success in registering new voters in El Paso Texas which also has a Hispanic population. Trump's campaign believes that Trump's immigration policies will be popular with legal Hispanics and will be a counter to Democrats lurch left on social issues. There is also a senate seat up for grabs as well. The President has a huge war chest and has enough money to spend on non-traditional swing states including New Mexico, Maine, Minnesota, Virginia and Colorado.

My Comment:

That would have been a good article from Politico if they hadn't quoted a bunch of anti-Trump weirdos. I know the Libertarian Party is strong in New Mexico but that doesn't mean that you have to quote the head of the party calling Trump a racist. Hugely biased. 

As for the President's strategy, I think it might be a good idea. I think some non-swing states are just that way because nobody tried to peel them away. Trump was successful in doing this in 2020 with the "blue wall" states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. While Hillary Clinton ignored my state of Wisconsin, Trump was here several times and managed to pull out an upset win here. 

But is New Mexico the best bet? I am not so sure. I personally think that both Minnesota and Maine are better choices. Minnesota barely went to Clinton and Maine actually has split delegate system and Trump won the 2nd congressional district. Clinton won the 1st and the state but neither of those things are a sure thing in 2020. I think President Trump has a much better chance of winning either of those states over New Mexico.

Could he win New Mexico too though? New Mexico went for Hillary Clinton by 8 points. President Trump also has to face a strong libertarian party there. Famous pothead and man confused about Aleppo, Gary Johnson, got 9 points. It seems like a very steep hill to climb.

On the other hand, the GOP hasn't really tried to win in New Mexico in a very long time. Both Romney and McCain pretty much ignored the state. I think there are a lot of conservatives there that have pretty much given up and if President Trump and the GOP work to try and get people registered they could make a difference. 

Critically, President Trump and the GOP has a huge warchest. President Trump alone has $200 million available to him and that's enough money to spend pretty much anywhere. It probably doesn't pay to do so in California, Illinois or New York, but for semi-swing states like New Mexico there isn't really too much of a downside. Plus planning rallies and ads could cause people to donate, helping nationally even if it doesn't get New Mexico's 5 electoral votes. 

Is there a downside here? Possibly. All President Trump needs to win in 2020 is defend the states and districts he already won. If he focuses too much on these states he might not defend other critical swing states like Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. I think that President Trump has enough money and energy to do both but it is something to consider.

Finally, I think that even if New Mexico isn't a likely victory, targeting has other benefits as well. It will force a response from the Democrats, who are famously broke in 2020. They don't have much money to spend and if Trump campaigns hard in New Mexico they will have to either defend the state, spending money that could be better spend on true swing states, or ignore the state and risk losing it. Even it doesn't result in a 5 vote swing, it will have a major effect on the race. 

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi calls for attacks on prison and detention camps.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. AFP.

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has released new audio urging surviving ISIS members to attack prison and detention camps holding ISIS prisoners. AFP. Al-Baghdadi said  ISIS fighters should "do your utmost to rescue your brothers and sisters and break down the walls that imprison them." Thousands of ISIS fighters are held in prisons in Syria and Iraq while their families are held in large detention camps. The Kurds alone have 12,000 foreigners in their camps, while Iraq may have as many as 20,000 ISIS prisoners, with 500 foreigners scheduled for execution. The conditions in the camps are not good and there are rumors that ISIS has control of some of them. 

My Comment:

I'm honestly surprised that al-Baghdadi is still alive. He has to be the most wanted person in the world right now and he must have amazing operational security in order to avoid eating a missile strike. His recent message mirrors one from al-Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who also called for new attacks. 

Is his plan a good one? Possibly. The estimated 32,000 ISIS imprisoned fighters in Syria and Iraq would make a good core for a new army of terrorists. If ISIS could find a way to release them it would be a boon for their them, and would again make them a major fighting force.

There are of course problems with that. First of all, these are all men that surrendered when they realized that the war was lost. Even if they were released there is not guarantee that they would rejoin ISIS. They might not have much of a choice as ISIS is pretty notorious for executing fighters accused of cowardice. 

Second of all, I don't know where ISIS would get the fighters to raid a prison and rescue fighters. ISIS no longer has much of an army and if they were to mass for an attack on one they would likely be destroyed. Though these prisons don't have the best security, I can't see them overpowering all the guards. 

However, it seems as though the Kurdish prisons are exceptionally vulnerable. They haven't the troops to provide decent security for many of their camps and a determined force could probably liberate fighters. 

That being said, even if they did manage to pull off a successful prison raid, the logistics would be a major problem. They wouldn't have the cash and supplies to feed, house and arm the thousands of fighters they would liberate. It's a plan I guess but it's not one I think will work out for ISIS. They might be better off if it worked but the payout isn't great and the chance of success isn't really worth the risk. 

New York Times again revives attacks on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh. National Review/Reuters.

The New York Times have again revived attacks against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh but exclude critical context. National Review. The report says that at a party in college Kavanaugh was pushed into a young woman and his penis was pushed into her hands. However, reviewers who have read the book note that the Times left out critical information, namely that the supposed female victim in the case had no recollection of the incident. 

The new allegations come after new video revealed that Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were motivated in part due to politics. The Federalist. Ford's lawyer said that Ford was partially motivated by attacking "misogyny" and defending Roe vs Wade. 

Christine Ford's lawyer Debra Katz says putting "an asterisk" next to Kavanaugh's name in case Kavanaugh attacked Roe v. Wade "is part of what motivated Christine." pic.twitter.com/zoFr2T8Aec

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) September 4, 2019

My Comment:
It seems so strange that the New York Times is reviving this now. Kavanaugh has been vindicated with several of his accusers being revealed as frauds. And there is no real reason for him to be attacked right now. He's already serving as a justice and it's not like it's that easy to get rid of him.

 But I do think that is what this is. The Democrats and there media allies are furious that the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh didn't work. They are still throwing a temper tantrum over the fact that they lost the Supreme Court and are now trying to get a do-over. They are probably angling for impeachment which would obviously fail miserably.

As for the accusation itself, it's a joke. It almost seems like Kavanaugh was the victim. He was supposedly pushed into a woman and it sounds like someone touched his penis without consent. That doesn't mean that the woman wasn't a victim too, but it seems like Kavanaugh didn't do anything wrong other than possibly being naked?

But, it is of course a moot point. The woman who was supposedly the victim in this case had no recollection if the event ever happening. There is only one witness, Max Stier, and it sounds like he might have an ax to grind as well. Supposedly he was one of the Clinton's attorneys, but I haven't seen a great source for that.

All of the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh have been poorly sourced and wouldn't hold up even in a civil case. Even if the accusations were 100% in this case there would have been no charges filed and probably not even a ticket for disorderly conduct. Indeed, if anything Kavanaugh was a victim. But again, even the supposed female victim in the case has no recollection of the event happening. 

The whole "lets believe any crazy accusation against public figures without any attempt at due process or even basic research" thing is getting a little old. We saw it with Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump and Roy Moore. If you push back against these accusations, when it's pretty damn clear that they wouldn't hold up in a court of law, you get called a misogynist or worse.   

Iranian backed Houthi rebels launch a drone attack against Saudi Arabia's largest oil facility.

A satellite view of the oil facilities burning. Politico/AP/NASA.

Iranian backed Houthi rebels launch a drone attack against Saudi Arabia's largest oil processing facility. Politico. President Trump has blamed the Iranian government for the attack which processes half of Saudi Arabia's oil. It is unclear where the drones came from. Iran has launched several drone attacks against the kingdom during the war in Yemen. The attack seems to have destroyed any chance of President Trump meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The Department of Energy may release assets from the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserve to offset any disruption in global oil supplies caused by the attack. 

My Comment:

This is a major escalation in the Yemen proxy war. Iran, through their Houthi rebel proxies, have launched many attacks against Saudi Arabia itself, but none have been this effective. With this drone strike Iran has damaged half of Saudi Arabia's oil production and massively disrupted their economy. 

This is, of course, a major act of war. An attack like this will almost certainly draw some kind of response. I wouldn't be surprised if Saudi Arabia launches some kind of reprisal attack. Either against the Houthi proxy army in Yemen or in Iran directly. This could lead to a major conflict breaking out. 

What do I think will happen? I am not sure. Iran has come close to drawing airstrikes before and this might be a red line for Saudi Arabia. I know President Trump doesn't want a war with Iran, but it might not be up to him. The Saudis may launch their own strikes, either conventional in nature or otherwise, on Iran's oil facilities. 

There seems to be some argument about whether the Iranians are responsible for the attack or not. That seems to be a moot point. Iran gave these drones to the Houthi rebels as they do not have the capability to develop them on their own. Even if the Iranian government didn't order or carry out the attack directly, they are still responsible for the attack. Indeed, it's likely that they played a major role in this attack beyond just handing the drones to the Houthis. 

The Yemen conflict has been a strange war. I think the term is hybrid warfare, where a non-state actors use both conventional and unconventional attacks. The Houthi rebels are an exceptionally well-armed group who have access to drones and ballistic missiles. They are a huge threat. 

This, of course, could cause an increase in oil prices. America should be insulated from this due to our massive glut of oil production. We are a net energy exporter right now so what happens in the Middle East no longer effects us as much. 

However, Europe could be in trouble. They get much of their oil from Saudi Arabia and are barred from getting oil from Iran. They will be put into an uncomfortable position of having to choose between Iran and their cheap oil or risking angering the United States and heir Saudi and Israeli allies. It's not a good choice for either of them but they risk damage to their economy no matter what. 

I am hoping cooler heads will prevail here. I don't think a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is too likely, at least not a full scale one where one side invades the other. There might be a limited air war but that's probably about it. Even then, most of the damage will be economic as the market panics when this kind of conflict happens. My hope is that the Saudis calm down and don't do anything drastic...