Republican congressman Louie Gohmert says that a successful impeachment could lead to civil war.

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). Congressional photo. 

A Republican congressman has said that a successful impeachment could result in a civil war. The Hill. Texas representative Louie Gohmert said  “[Democrats]about to push this country to a civil war if they were to get their wishes.” Gohmert also pointed out that the impeachment inquiry was being handled in a way that did not allow Republicans to participated at all and warned that Republicans could do the same thing the next time a Democrat is in office and the Republicans control the house. The comments come after the Democrats voted on rules for the impeachment inquiry. 

Gohmert's full comment's are below. 

My Comment:

Like most Americans, I haven't been following the impeachment drama. I know it's nothing more than a political stunt by the Democrats who know that President Trump has the advantage in 2020. They won't ever bring it to an actual vote or let Republicans participate in their hearings as they know there is no actual crime to investigate. It's mostly just noise and fury signifying nothing so I have tuned it out.

But Louie Gohmert's claims here are worth discussing, specifically the ones about a potential civil war. I think that he really is right. If the Democrats were to somehow manage to convince enough Republicans in the Senate to remove President Trump it would likely lead to violence. 

I've said for a long time that we are much closer to civil war than people realize. Both sides of the country are furious at each other and the Democrats seem very likely to cross some of the Republican's  red lines. Gun control was one of them, but I always though the other was removing President Trump for anything short of him being caught in bed with a dead woman or live boy. 

Part of it is the fact that this whole scheme is so obviously a joke. There is no actual crime in the President talking to Ukraine. And there is no crime in wanting to expose political corruption, even if that corruption is from a political opponent. With the Zelensky phone call transcript being released weeks ago it's strange that the Democrats are even trying to continue when it's so obvious that their plot has failed. 

Another problem is that the Democrats don't have any credibility anymore. We already did this song and dance before. For almost three years they were saying President Trump was compromised by Russia and that he worked with them. But even after a huge investigation, years of media witch hunts and millions of dollars spent there was no smoking gun. Indeed, even the Muller report showed no collusion and could only allude to behavior that might have been wrong without proving any of it. 

Furthermore the general public is a lot more aware of how crooked both operations against President Trump were. We know that the origins of the Russia investigation were hatched up by the Obama administration and we also know that the so called "whistleblower" was a Democrat. 

But are we heading to a civil war? I really doubt it. For one thing, this impeachment inquiry is political theater, there is almost no chance it ends with President Trump being removed from office. Even voting to make it an official impeachment is unlikely as it would allow the Republicans to cross examine witnesses and for President Trump to mount a defense. That won't happen and even if it did somehow, the impeachment would voted down in the Senate. 

Without a spark to start a war, I can't see one happening in America, at least in the short term. Especially when everyone is fat, happy and has money in their pocket. As long as the power stays on and the food deliveries keep happening it's unlikely to kick off unless something really stupid happens. 

Even though I think civil war is extremely unlikely, I do think it's important for the Democrats to recognize that their actions are creeping up to a red line. I think that, at the very least, the Democrats leadership understands this. They know that removing President Trump would destroy them and lead to civil unrest and possibly violence. That's not the goal. The goal is to damage his 2020 chances because they know they can't win based on the merits or demographics. 

Democrats fear that Tulsi Gabbard may run as a third party or independent candidate in 2020.

Tulsi Gabbard;s congressional photo.

Democrats are concerned that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard may launch a third party or independent candidate bid in 2020. The Hill. Gabbard announced last week that she will not run for her house seat again in 2020 and will be pushing her funds into her presidential campaign. Gabbard has been polling in the single digits and is very unlikely to be the presidential nominee for the Democrats. Gabbard has said that she will not launch a third party run but she has clashed with Democratic leadership on many issues. She also claims that the DNC was rigging the primary campaign against her and has criticized both Democrat's foreign policy and the lack of transparency of the impeachment efforts against President Trump. Democrats are wary of third party runs as many of them blame Jill Stein for their loss in 2016. 

My Comment:

I don't think the Democrats have this right at all. I have seen no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard actually wants to run as a third party candidate. She seems committed to her presidential run and seems like she is going for the main prize, not some irrelevant third party run. 

There is an open question as to why Gabbard hasn't dropped out. She isn't polling very well and she has little chance of becoming a top tier candidate. I think it's for two reasons. First of all Gabbard is a single issue candidate. Much like Eric Swalwell pushed the party to the left on gun rights, Gabbard is trying to push the party in an anti-war direction. She's trying to move the overton window. 

Second of all, I think Gabbard has personal reasons for running. I think it was pretty clear that she was going to be primaried in her house seat. She would almost certainly be out of a job in 2020 if she doesn't find something else to do. Gabbard will probably gain a new job as a media pundit, probably on conservative news. Much like the never-Trump right she's part of her own party that's dead but popular among the other party. Gabbard will likely be the kind of media talking head that goes on conservative shows and ends up agreeing with the hosts most of the time. 

Third, I think Gabbard is looking for some measure of revenge. It's pretty clear that her party turned on her very quick once she went anti-war. Being critical of globalist foreign policy and regime change is enough for the DNC to be against her and it's clear they are playing favorites against her. Having Hillary Clinton and the media falsely call her a Russian agent probably pissed her off as well so she's in the race to expose how unfair the Democrats can be. 

But does that mean she is going to run third party? I doubt it. I don't think Gabbard has enough fans to support a major run for President. Her policies aren't that different from the Democrats other than foreign policy and she has a large group of people that just despise her. 

If she does run though, who would it hurt more? The Democrats seem to think that she would be a spoiler for their candidate but I'm not sure. Gabbard's fairly popular on the right and is usually cited as "one of the good ones". If President Trump got sloppy on foreign policy and got us into a new war somehow, I think Gabbard would take more votes away from the Republicans than the Democrats. She could certainly be a spoiler but not for the party the Democrats think. 

Of course, since both parties are pretty stupid they don't seem to realize this. The Democrats are going to do anything they can to stop a Gabbard run and the GOP will likely encourage it. It's not going to happen regardless, but if it does it will throw a wrench in the 2020 election. Remember, the only incumbent president to lose a 2nd term was George Bush and that was because he had a credible third party challenger. If Gabbard runs and Trump gets squishy on foreign policy it could happen to him too... 

Jeff Sessions is considering running for his old Senate seat against Doug Jones.

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Politico. 

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering running for his old Senate seat in Alabama against Doug Jones. Politco. Sessions would join a crowded field if he did, including Rep. Bradley Byrne, former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville, Secretary of State John Merrill, state Rep. Arnold Mooney and Roy Moore, who famously lost against Doug Jones in 2017 after a sex scandal ruined his campaign. Sessions remains popular in Alabama but his biggest hurdle would be his former boss, President Trump. Trump and Sessions had a very difficult working relationship and Trump blames Sessions for the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller. Sessions has until November 8th to decide if he wants to join the race. 

My Comment:

I'm of two minds of this. On the one hand, I think Sessions could potentially win. He's still popular in Alabama and was a successful senator there. He's got national name recognition and would probably be the frontrunner. 

He would also likely knock Roy Moore out of the race. Though I am on record on saying that Moore was railroaded by the media, he still not electable. He had a series of scandals long before the sex scandal took down his campaign and allowed Doug Jones to win, and he's already proven that he can't win a Senate race. Sessions would likely be able to take the seat back, but even if he would have an uphill battle, he would do better than Roy Moore. 

On the other hand, Sessions really did screw over President Trump with his recusal on the Russia matter. If he had shown a little backbone he would have likely prevented the appointment of the Special Counsel, which would have given President Trump much more freedom, probably saved the House in 2018 and would have prevented the current impeachment drama. 

Sessions was a pretty terrible Attorney General. Though he did have some success against human trafficking, he failed pretty miserably at everything else. He didn't do anything to protect gun rights, stop the conspiracy against President Trump or clean house at the FBI. But he did crack down on legal marijuana dealers, which was nobody else's priority. His priorities were so out of wack people either though he was going senile or was actively working against the President. 

The relationship with President Trump is probably dead too. I doubt Trump would endorse him even to win back the Senate seat, while even Roy Moore would probably get a better reception than Sessions would. Stranger things have happened but I can't see President Trump endorsing him, and that endorsement would go a long way in Alabama. 

I personally think that Sessions shouldn't run. There are four other candidates that are viable in the race and getting Roy Moore out isn't worth it. If I lived in Alabama I would be voting for pretty much any of the other candidates over Sessions and Moore. That being said, even the incompetent and useless version of Sessions we had at Attorney General would be better than Doug Jones... 

President Trump announces ISIS's heir apparent, spokesman Abu-Hasan al-Muhajir, was also killed.

President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump announced on Twitter today that ISIS spokesman and heir apparent Abu-Hasan al-Muhajir was killed in an military raid in Syria. The Hill. Al-Muhajir's death was reported shortly after the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but was not confirmed until now. President Trump said during the announcement of al-Baghdadi's death that other ISIS leaders were in their sights, with al-Muhajir dying shortly after. Al-Muhajir was killed in an airstrike along with a few other ISIS fighters. 

Just confirmed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s number one replacement has been terminated by American troops. Most likely would have taken the top spot - Now he is also Dead!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 29, 2019

My Comment:

This news was widely reported on Monday but wasn't confirmed until today. For whatever reason it had not been confirmed until President Trump tweeted it out. I could have wrote it up yesterday but there wasn't much information about what happened.

My guess is that it took awhile to confirm the death. If this was an airstrike they probably couldn't do what they did with al-Baghdadi where they used DNA testing right away to confirm that it was him. Instead they probably either had to check the wreckage or are just assuming that he is dead. It's a lot more possible that al-Muhajir is still somehow alive than it is for al-Baghdadi, but I think they are now both dead.

Al-Muhajir was a major ISIS player. He has been the spokesman for the terror group since 2016 when his predecessor,  Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, was also killed in an airstrike. He gave several propaganda speeches and was one of the frontrunners to replace al-Baghdadi.

There is some question about who al-Muhajir actually is. Some people speculate that he was Yahya al-Bahrumi, who was originally a Texan man named John Thomas Georgelas. Al-Bahrumi was presumably killed in 2017 during the battle of Mayadin in Syria. It's possible or even probable that neither of the men are related to each other.

Killing two major leaders of ISIS is a huge victory for the United States. ISIS is now in chaos and have no real leadership left. That will make regrouping even more difficult than it would have been before the death of al-Baghdadi and al-Muhajir.

ISIS didn't have much of a chance of coming back anyways. There aren't any real territories left that are up for grabs. Only Idlib province is a wild west kind of area and they would have to compete with both the more secular rebels and the al-Nusra Jihadist group. Every other territory in Syria is either controlled by the Syrian government and their Russian allies, the Kurds, Turkey or the United States.

I really do think that this is one of the closing chapters of the ISIS saga. Their caliphate lies in ruins, much of their leadership is dead and what little remains of the organization is scattered and not really capable of major attacks. It's always possible that they could somehow rise from the grave, much as al-Qaeda in Iraq did when it returned as ISIS, but that seems a lot less likely these days. 

Judge rules defamation case against Washington Post filed by Nick Sandmann's family can continue.

Nick Sandmann confonted by Nathan Phillips. USA Today/AP.

A federal judge has ruled that some of the defamation claims against the Washington Post filed by Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann can continue to trial after originally dismissing the case. USA Today. After reviewing an amended complaint, the judge in the case said the case could enter the discovery phase. The case concerns a viral video where Sandmann and other kids from Covington Catholic were confronted by a Native American activist Nathan Phillips. The Washington Post and other news outlets claimed that Sandman was aggressive with Phillips but additional video showed that Sandmann did nothing but stand their and actually tried to defuse the situation. The Judge ruled that 30 of the 33 statements Sandmann's lawyers said were defamation were not but in three cases it could be argued. Those statements from the Post said that Sandmann blocked Nathan Phillips and did not allow him to leave. The amended complaint also aledges that the Washington Post should have known that Nathan Phillips was not reliable. 

My Comment:

An update to an old story which has now faded into the background but one that still angers me. From the very start is was clear that Sandmann did nothing wrong but the media portrayed him as some kind of violent racist when all he did was stand there quietly. Though later videos proved that Phillips (and the Black Hebrew Nationalists) were the ones doing the harassment. 

I was very angry when this case was originally dismissed. It seemed very clear that the Washington Post and other outlets were acting with malice. It should have been obvious to anyone that Sandmann was the one being harassed and considering the circumstances he acted like a mature young man. 

But what did the Post and other outlets do? They tried to make Sandmann out to be some kind of white supremacist, so full of hate that he harassed an innocent man of color. It didn't matter to them that Sandmann just stood there. It didn't matter that he and the other Covington Catholic kids were harassed by the Black Hebrew Nationalists who said some very racist things about them. And it certainly didn't matter to them that Nathan Phillips has a history of making things up and was the one that started the incident in the first place. None of that mattered because the Post though portraying a kid wearing a Make America Great Again hat as a monster was more important than the truth. As far as I am concerned they defamed this young man and he deserves to be compensated for that. 

With this ruling the discovery process can begin. That means the Post will have to hand over any internal communication about this story that could help Sandmann's case. Given how arrogant and cocky the Post and the media have been I wouldn't be surprised if they found a smoking gun. If there is an e-mail saying that they should ignore exculpatory evidence and go with the headlines they did the Post will have to pay out the nose.

The problem is that the Post won't be hurt too much even if they lose. Jeff Bezo's owns the paper and he has more money that almost anyone else on Earth. Bezo's has around $110 billion. Even if the Post has to pay $100 million it will be a drop in the bucket for Bezo's. And I doubt that Sandmann will win that much after appeals, even if he does win. Even a huge lawsuit and judgement against the Post won't do too much for their day to day operations. However, a big judgement might discourage other outlets from doing the same thing that the Post did in the future. 

However, even if the Washington Post can afford to lose money, the reputation hit will damage them more. Though I doubt many of the subscribers of the Post will care that they defamed an innocent child, it will hurt the reputation of the writers and editors of the paper. But given the fact that the rest of the media was just as wrong as the Post was it won't do much. 

The death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, founder and leader of ISIS.

File photo of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. BBC/AFP.

As you are surely aware, the United States lead a military raid against ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The BBC has a good round up of how that mission went down, but I will summarize here. 

The United States found al-Baghdadi's location and had been spying on him for a week before President Trump launched the raid. Once they had his location locked down in Barisha Syria, in Idlib province, they sent a force of 8 helicopters and a team of Delta Force and Army Rangers. They informed both Turkey and Russia that they were launching the opperation and both countries allowed the helicopters to fly through their territory. The helicopters did come under small arms fire from local insurgents, but were not destroyed. 

Once on site, US forces killed or captured most of the fighters there. They killed two of Baghdadi's wives and rescued 11 children. Baghdadi fled into a tunnel with no exit with three of his kids. Baghdadi was being pursued by US military dogs and detonated a suicide vest when it was clear that he had no way to escape, killing himself and the three children and wounding a military dog. 

Baghdadi's death was confirmed by use of DNA samples and other means. Parts of his body were recovered and taken back. ISIS has denied that he died but US forces have proof that he did. The raid was successful and no US casualties were suffered. It's unlikely that we will see his remains anytime soon due to the extremely destructive way he died and the fact that there wasn't much left of his body. 

Though it's generally agreed that killing Baghdadi was a good thing that doesn't mean the raid was free from controversy. President Trump did not inform key Democratic members of congress including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Foreign Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff citing the presence of leakers that could put the operation at risk. 

I think that was the right move. President Trump is right that Washington leaks like a sieve and if he had given this information to Pelosi or Schiff before the raid it's very possible that they would have leaked it. I don't think they care one bit about the lives of US special forces operators if it means that they could damage President Trump with failed raid. And if they personally didn't leak to the media someone on their staff definitely would have. Right now the only thing Democrats care about is trying to remove President Trump before he beats them in the 2020 election and there is nothing that they won't do to stop him, including putting US troops lives on the line.  

As for the US media their reaction has been poor to say the least. Most shameful was the Washington Post who, in a now deleted headline, called Baghdadi an "austere religious scholar". Considering the incredible list of atrocities the man committed that is just shameful. Other outlets criticized Trump for saying too much about the raid, not informing congress and for being much more harsh against Baghdadi compared to other Presidents. 

I personally think that Trump was excellent during his speech to the nation this morning. I watched the whole thing, including the Q&A session afterwards that many networks cut away from, this morning. I think it was one of his better speeches and he did a good job reminding people what kind of monster Baghdadi really was. He also praised US troops and the various nations that helped (or at least didn't hinder) this operation. I had planned to live tweet the event but I was so captivated by what he was saying that I just couldn't do it. It was fitting that he mentioned some of the more notable people killed by ISIS including James Foley, Kayla Mueller and Mutah al-Kasasbah. And he also, critically, mentioned the genocides against Christians and Yazidis as well. 

As for the raid itself, it just goes to show how good our troops can be when let off of their leashes. Idlib province is the wild west and it's one of the few areas still controlled by Jihadists in Syria. They managed to get in, get out and accomplish all of their objectives with no casualties other than a military dog.  

Speaking of the military dog, as far as I am concerned it's a hero too. The dogs of war have always been a component to our military and they have saved hundreds of human lives. I also appreciated that one of the last things Baghdadi saw was a dog bearing down on him considering how Muslims think dogs are "unclean".

As for Baghdadi himself, I personally was relieved that he died. I started this blog in 2014 in part to document the horrible things ISIS was doing in the world. I have written thousands of words of all the horrible things that ISIS has done and while researching them I have seen things that nobody should ever see. A group of men being drowned alive in a cage. The blood from dozens of Christians turning the waters of the Mediterranean Sea red. A toddler being forced to murder someone. More executions than I can even recall. Not to mention the list of terror attacks and atrocities that go on and on. 

Baghdadi was without a doubt the 21st centuries most evil man and his ideology and terror group that he inspired is responsible for untold human suffering. He was a monster and the world is a much safer, better place without him in it. I celebrate his death and sincerely hope that ISIS finally dies with him. 

President Trump was right to call the man a coward as he died a cowardly death. Instead of standing and fighting he ran away taking three of his kids with him as human shields. When it was clear he had no escape he blew himself up, killing his own children. Even in death he ended up taking even more innocent lives. I'm not a very religious man and I don't know what happens when you die. But I do sincerely hope that if there is a hell that Baghdadi is there right now. He did everything in his power to bring hell to the world and, at the very least, he was brought to justice. 

Breaking News! ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi reported dead after special forces raid in Syria.

A file photo of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Newsweek/AFP/Getty.

News broke this evening that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed in a special forces raid in Syria. 

Newsweek reported the story here, claiming two anonymous sources, one from the Pentagon and one from the US military. They said that President Trump confirmed the raid and that the raid occurred in Idlib province, notable for being the last place under Jihadist control in Syria. Newsweek also said that Baghdadi is "dead pending verification", suggesting that the US government is still confirming that the body they collected is his. 

Fox News also has a brief article, citing another anonymous source that Baghdadi is dead. 

President Trump has also comment on Twitter, though he was vague. NBC news and other sources say that he has a major announcement set for tomorrow at 9:00 AM Eastern. 

Something very big has just happened!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2019

DEVELOPING: "Something very big has just happened!" President Trump tweeted at 9:23 p.m. ET.

A White House official tells @NBCNews that the president will be making a statement Sunday at 9 a.m. ET.

— NBC News (@NBCNews) October 27, 2019

A local Syrian reporter posted a couple of videos of what could be a raid. These videos are unconfirmed.

فيديو لغارات من طائرات حربية مجهولة أدت لإشتعال النيران بين باريشا و حتان بريف إدلب الشمالي بالقرب من الحدود التركية السورية. pic.twitter.com/w83K8DJMKE

— Mohamad Rasheed محمد رشيد (@mohmad_rasheed) October 27, 2019

عدة طائرات مروحية تحلق في سماء منطقة باريشا بريف إدلب الشمالي على الحدود التركية السورية وتقوم باستهداف المنطقة بالرشاشات الثقيلة، وسط إطلاق نار من مضادات أرضية للتصدي لتلك المروحيات، دون ورود معلومات عن تبعية هذه المروحيات أو طبيعة العملية التي تنفذها في المنطقة. pic.twitter.com/KJlPKkZN8n

— Mohamad Rasheed محمد رشيد (@mohmad_rasheed) October 26, 2019

What's my take on this? I'm cautiously optimistic. Obviously something is going on and I think it's pretty clear that a raid did occur. In addition to the sources I cited above, local and regional news agencies in the Middle East are reporting the same thing, that Baghdadi is dead. And the rumor certainly matches what President Trump said on Twitter.

But I would also like to caution that without confirmation from the US government it's very possible that this story is wrong. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been reported dead many times before, more times than I can remember. Without him captured or his body in US custody, it's too soon to say that he is dead for sure.

Furthermore, as always, we should consider the fact that both the Newsweek and Fox News articles cited anonymous sources. There have been so many reports based on anonymous sources that ended up being wrong in the end that it's always important to point that out when it happens. It's always possible that these reports are partially or totally wrong.

From what it sounds, special forces raided the area where Baghdadi was suspected to be hiding and may have taken back a body. If true that body is likely being tested. I'm not sure how fast a DNA test takes or if they even have Baghdadi's DNA but if so we should know for sure soon. At the very least we should know something tomorrow at 9:00 AM eastern.

If Baghdadi really is dead or captured it will be a huge victory. Not just for President Trump, who will make political gains from the raid, but a victory for the entire world. ISIS was responsible for some of the most horrific attacks and killing in modern history including the Paris attacks, the bombings in Sri Lanka, the downing of a Russian airliner and more than a few terror attacks right here in the United States, along with untold murders and slaughters in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya. They were, without a doubt, the most evil group in the world and Baghdadi was their leader. I sincerely hope that he was indeed brought to justice.

US Army reveals prototypes for new 6.8 SPC rifles and machine guns.

General Dynamics Next Generation Squad Weapon entry. Military.com.

The US Army has revealed prototypes for the new 6.8 SPC rifles and machine guns set to replace the venerable M4 rifles and M249 machine guns. Military.com. All three competitors, General Dynamics, Textron Systems and Sig Sauer, displayed their weapons at an Army movie. The 6.8mm SPC has better ballistics at range, can defeat body armor, and works better on short barrel rifles. The Army seems pleased with the new weapons saying they have achieved all their goals with the weapons even the ones though impossible. General Dynamics have bullpup designs for their weapons, which allows a longer barrel length while still being compact. Textron uses unique plastic cased ammo while having a more conventional design. Sig Sauer is the most traditional of the three designs, with it being based on the M4 design with many upgrades. The Army will choose which of the three designs to use in 2022 and will begin fielding them in 2023.

My Comment:

All three of these companies designs look pretty cool. Out of the three I think I like Sig Sauer's the best, even though I am not a huge fan of the company. I like the more traditional M4 design over the bullpup design that General Dynamics has. 

However, given how poorly the Sig Saur handgun, the M17 and M18, ended up in terms of quality control I am not sure that they are the best company for the new rifle. The P320 and it's various were fairly famous for having a drop-fire problem that was ludicrously dangerous and was the result of poor design. They have fixed the design now but it might be something to worry about. 

As for the change from 5.56 to 6.8, I think it's justified. Much of the problem is that 5.56 wasn't really designed for long range combat through short barrled rifles. The M4's had a lot of problems in long range combat in Afghanistan and wasn't the best option for storming houses. 6.8 SPC is a better round in both cases. 

I think adopting a new round and rifle will likely result in changes in the civilian gun market as well. As you are almost certainly aware, the vast majority of sporting rifles today are chambered in 5.56 or the .223 sister round. One of the big advantages of the round is the fact that in a survival situation you wouldn't run out of ammo as you could always find military caches of 5.56. Once the Army adopts 6.8 that won't be the case anymore. 

Cost is an issue here as well as 6.8 SPC is a lot more expensive than .223/5.56. From what I have found, the best price you will find for 6.8 is just under $1 a round, which is a lot more than the 30 to 40 cents 5.56 costs. If civilians end up buying these rifles in large numbers the price will go down but it is a concern for the early adopters. 

Another advantage when the US Army adopts 6.8 is the fact that the stupid gun control argument that AR-15's are military rifles will be moot. After all, if the government uses something else you can't argue that these guns are military rifles, even though that argument is dumb in the first place. 

Regardless, it's a fairly exciting time. I always like seeing these new weapon systems and it will be interesting which company the Army chooses. My guess is that they will go with Sig Sauer due to the more traditional design and the fact that they won the contract for the US Army's handguns but it's way too early to tell. We will just have to wait until 2022 to find out! 

Democrat Congressman Tim Ryan drops 2020 run for President.

Congressman Tim Ryan. Official Portrait.

Democratic congressman Tim Ryan has ended his race to be the 2020 Democratic candidate for President. Fox News. He will now instead focus on winning his congressional seat in Ohio's 13th congressional district. Ryan was a more moderate candidate that had often clashed with the more progressive elements of his party. During the debates he criticized medicare for all, describing it as damaging to his party. Those attacks did not land as Bernie Sanders deflected it by saying "I wrote the damn bill!" Ryan, who was notable for attempting to unseat Nancy Pelosi as house speaker, never made much impact on the polls. With him out of the race the Democratic field had narrowed to 18 candidates. 

My Comment:

I am surprised it took so long for Ryan to exit the race. He wasn't at the last debate and he didn't really have much of an impact on the other ones he did participate in. His only notable accomplishment was when Bernie Sanders got one of his best lines of the campaign so far when he responded to Ryan's criticism by saying "I wrote the damn bill". Other than that, Ryan didn't accomplish much. 

There just isn't a lane for a moderate this time around in the Democratic Party. The lunatics are running the asylum there and Biden has sucked most of the air out of the room for "moderates". I don't think Biden or Ryan are moderate in any way other than in comparison to the other candidates, but the fact remains if you aren't a far left socialist or a woke identity politics leftist, you don't have a role in this race if your name isn't Joe Biden. 

Ryan's biggest problem is name recognition. Though he has been a congressman since 2003, I had never heard of him before this election cycle. He is not a household name and when you aren't one you have to have a good debate performance. Ryan did not, barely contributing in the debates he was at. Without that performance he was doomed. 

Ryan may have also made a mistake in attacking his fellow candidates during the debates. Most of those attacks didn't land and I don't think much of the Democratic primary voters want to hear that medicare for all is unrealistic and could damage their 2020 chances. That's obviously true but going centrist is usually not recommended until you are the candidate.

As for the Democrats, it's still clown car. Right now there are only about three candidates that have a realistic chance of winning, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton might have one as well, assuming she enters the race as I expect. Everyone else doesn't have much of a chance and have an uphill battle to have any expectations of success once the voting starts.  

Father loses custody in James Younger case and goes viral due to controversy of a seven year old gender transition.

Jeffrey Younger and his son, James younger, also known as "Luna". News.com.au.

A father had a jury rule against him in a custody dispute centered around whether a seven year old should change genders. News.com.au. The father, Jeffrey Younger claims that his son, James Younger, is not transgender and acts like a boy when around him. His mother, Anne Georgulas, says that James is transgender and refers to her as Luna. A jury rejected Younger's request to for sole custody and confirmed Georgulas' request for custody and will force Younger to refer to his son with female pronouns and keep him away from people who don't think he is transgender. The case went viral causing massive outrage over the case with many Texas politicians chiming in. 

FYI the matter of 7 year old James Younger is being looked into by the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. #JamesYounger

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 23, 2019

My Comment:
I wasn't going to comment on this case as it seems like a lightning rod if you say the wrong thing. Given the high stakes in the case and the immense controversy, I am going to limit my comments and mostly talk about the reaction to the case and not my own thoughts. Saying the wrong thing here could cause me to lose this blog or face other repercussions. Even using the wrong name or pronoun for the child in question could potentially get this blog banned.

First, some clarifications. Though the father claims that the child will undergo "chemical castration" which seems like an exaggeration. That being said, the discussion of puberty blockers is fairly disturbing as from what I understand those aren't usually prescribed in these cases until the onset of puberty, which is still years away. The medical effects and use of these drugs is obviously controversial. I also understand that puberty blockers are fairly dangerous as well and have caused more than a few deaths. Even if it's not technically "chemical castration" it's still extremely controversial. Furthermore it seems as though if the treatment is applied it won't happen for a couple years. That is still extremely early but it seems like it won't happen right away.

That being said, this case is going extremely viral on the right. It's showing up pretty much everywhere and to say people are angry is a massive understatement. People are more angry about this case then I have seen in a long time. The outrage is extreme and it's probably causing more anger than any other issue right now, including the impeachment inquiry and the gun control push. That is really saying something.

Mainstream, non-right wing media is pretty much ignoring this story. I had to use an Australian source to get a take that wasn't completely biased or non-existent. You would think that the mainstream media would have said something about it but even center right outlets like Fox News are ignoring the story. Part of it is general bias but I think more than a few outlets are afraid of the controversy in this case.

The obvious question here is whether a seven year old (or younger since the case started when the child was three) can decide their own gender identity. Does a small child really know what gender they are or can they be convinced that they aren't their birth sex by a parent? Such a question is probably the biggest LGBT controversy we have left and one that I don't have the answers for. I have my own opinion on this case but I'm not going to share it here.

That being said, this is almost certainly going to cause a backlash against the LGBT community. Acceptance was fairly high until the transgender push began. Now it appears to be dropping even among the young and I think it's cases like this that are why. People always said it was a slander that the LGBT community recruits children, but this case certainly seems that way. The idea that a father could lose his child and that child to be forced to change gender by a mother that brainwashed them is pretty horrifying for almost everyone on the right (and more than a few on the left). Whether that is the case here or not is up to debate but people don't want things like this to happen.

What will happen now? The judge has pushed back her ruling on the case but no matter what she says I don't think it will mater. The Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, is involved and it sure looks like that even if the mother gains full custody she's probably getting investigated for child abuse. I think the best thing for this child and the twin brother would be to get out of both of the houses and into a non-political foster home. No matter what you think of this case the massive controversy around it and the fact that the child has two parents telling him two different things can't be healthy. I am hoping a sane solution will be found.

39 bodies found in a trailer in Essex, United Kingdom.

The tractor-trailer in question. Yahoo News.

39 bodies have been found in a trailer in Essex and the driver has been arrested. Yahoo News. The bodies of 38 adults and one child were found in the trailer and were all pronounced dead. The driver was a 25 year old man and was from Northern Ireland. The trailer took a convoluted path to reach the UK as it was originally from Bulgaria and traveled to Ireland before crossing the Irish Sea for delivery in Essex. Police suspect that path was chosen to avoid security checks for human smuggling in places like Calais and Dover. The incident is likely related to human smuggling operations, though the country of origin for the dead is currently unknown. 

My Comment:

Fairly horrible story out of the UK this morning, but one that seems to be rather common these days. Finding a trailer full of dead bodies isn't that uncommon here in the United States. As illegal immigration and human trafficking increase these kinds of incidents will become more common. 

One wonders how they died though. In most cases in the US at least it is usually due to extreme heat. Un-refrigerated trailers can get extremely hot but due to the climate in the UK I doubt that is what happened. My guess is that the journey just took to long and the people inside ran out of water or oxygen. 

I don't have a problem with charging the driver with murder, assuming he knew what his cargo was. I guess there is a small chance that he had no idea that he was pulling human cargo but that seems extremely unlikely. He seems to have been very bad at his job as you would assume that part of it would have been keeping the people alive for delivery. 

This was a very well organized operation even if the delivery was a total failure. My guess is that some serious organized crime was going on here and it may not have even been the first time that they tried this. They could have done it many times without a hitch but for whatever reason it didn't work out this time. 

My guess is that the UK will likely crack down on it's border checks on trucks and trailers (or "lorries" in their parlance). The article mentioned dogs and heartbeat sensors and I am guessing that those checks will become more common at other ports now. Of course in this case these people may have been dead long before they entered the UK so those efforts may not have worked regardless, but it would help with other attempts to do this where the people were still alive. 

Regardless, as long as people want to come to other countries illegally, there will be incidents like this. And there will always be scummy evil people that don't care about who gets hurt during human smuggling as long as the money is there. Migrant deaths are just a fact of life these days and are pretty unavoidable. 

Russia and Turkey reach a deal to remove Kurdish YPG forces from the border..

Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin shake hands after making the agreement. Reuters. 

Russia and Turkey have reached a deal to remove Kurdish YPG forces from the border and ending Turkish operations in the area. Reuters. The deal will allow Russian and Syrian troops to re-enter the Kurdish region and will ensure that the YPG is no active in the 10 mile "safe zone". America, who recently withdrew from the area, reportedly supports the safe zone with Vice President Mike Pence saying that he approved. Most Kurdish fighters, including the Kurdish led Syria Defense Force (SDF) have pulled out of the safe zone but a few fighters still remain. 

My Comment:

I think everyone expected this deal to happen. There has been a lot of diplomatic overtures going on in the background between Russia, Turkey and the United States. Indeed, I thought this was in the works right as the US withdrawal and the Turkish offensive was announced. It's not at all surprising that this deal was made. 

This seems like a  win/win situation for pretty much everyone involved. All parties get something they want and though it's not a perfect solution it's one that seems relatively fair for all parties involved. 

For the United States we finally get to pull our troops out of Northern Syria. Our mission to defeat ISIS is complete and if they ever come back we still have the al-Tanf garrison in Southwest Syria to launch operations from. Our Kuridsh allies get somewhat screwed but not as bad as they would have been if the Turks had continued their invasion. 

The Turks get their safe zone. They will now have the Syrian government and their Russian allies to protect their border from cross-border Kurdish raids. This was always their true goal and their border should be somewhat more safe now. Plus they can dump their thousands of refugees in the safe zone, solving a second problem at the same time. 

The Russians get the international prestige of solving this issue and possible closer relations with both the Turks and the United States. Their Syrian ally is now in a stronger position an they don't have to worry about ISIS coming back. 

The Syrians are probably the biggest winners. They aren't going to have to go to war with Turkey to get them to remove their troops, they will pull back on their own. Plus they are taking back a huge swath of territory that they have lost since the civil war. Once they finally take back Idlib province from the last remaining rebels and Jihadists they will have finally won their war. 

The Kurds probably get the least out of this but I consider this a win for them as well. They were facing a massive war against the Turks that they had little chance of winning. They would have been destroyed and eliminated but now they have their own safezone in Syria and it's likely that they will survive in the future. 

Could the deal fall apart? Of course it could. The Kurds could go back on their word and attack the Turks. The Syrians might fail in their obligations to patrol the border and the Russians might get tired of spending lives and money in Syria. And even ISIS could come back and be a threat.

But I don't think any of that will happen. Everyone has a stake in this deal working out. Failure isn't really an option but everyone gains if it does. Something stupid could always happen but in the end it will most likely work out.

I have noticed that the US media is largely ignoring this story. After a couple weeks of hysterical outrage over the US withdrawal there is very little coverage of this deal that will ensure that the Turks and Kurds won't be going to large scale war. I am guessing that President Trump won't get any credit from these cretins and that most media outlets that report it at all will try and spin it as a bad thing.  

Democrats are starting to worry about Donald Trump and the Republicans massive fundraising advantage.

President Trump at a campaign rally. Politico. 

Democrats are starting to worry about President Donald Trump and the Republicans massive fundraising advantage. Politico. They have raised $300 million so far and have $158 million cash on hand, which is twice as much as Barack Obama and the Democrats had in the successful 2012 campaign. Trump has already spent $23 million on tv and digital adds, 10 times more than the one Democratic PAC buying ads at this point, Priorities USA. Trump is helped by the fact that Democratic donors are spreading their money around to a large field of Democratic candidates. One of the larger Democrat donor's, Tom Steyer, is complicating things buy spending his own money on a campaign that is likely to fail. Trump's advantage in funds will allow him to attempt to expand the electoral map in states like New Mexico and Minnesota. Democrats have grudgingly admitted that Trump's campaign is doing a very good job in organizing and finding new donors. 

My Comment:

Looks like President Trump's warchest is starting to sound alarms among the Democrats. I've been saying for awhile now that President Trump has raised a remarkable amount of money. Trump's money dwarfs his opposition and he hasn't really even begun to fundraise. It's very likely by the time that the Democrats have chosen a candidate Trump will have such an advantage that the Democrats won't be able to overcome it. 

Trump is also spending his money. I know that I personally have seen quite a few adds from President Trump's campaign and almost nothing from the Democrats. In addition I have seen a few ads for the NRA as well, showing that his allies are spending their money as well. The only Democrats I have seen are Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttgieg and Tom Steyer and both Buttgieg and Steyer were one-offs. 

However, I don't think that big money is as big of a deal as everyone seems to think. Hillary Clinton outspent President Trump in 2016 and still lost. I don't think the same thing will happen here but fundraising isn't the biggest thing in an election. 

I think fundraising is a better indication of how popular a candidate is. The Democrat's field is spread out with a bunch of candidates that nobody really cares about or likes. But Trump's basically the only game in town and his supporters love him. They are giving him money despite the danger of doing so, as attempts have been made to dox President Trump donors. 

Trump and his allies have also been very good at exploiting the various gaffes and idiocy that is coming from the Democrats lately. Impeachment has proven to be a big moneymaker for the Republicans. So has Robert Francis O'Rourke's crazy comments on gun rights and taxing churches. If the Democrats had treated President Trump like a normal president and given him a fair shot I think they would be in a much better position right now. 

Depending on who the candidate is, Democrats may find fundraising difficult. It's already been said that big tech won't donate to Elizabeth Warren since she is threatening to break them up. Though I can't see them giving to President Trump, I can see them not playing favorites with the 2020 race like they did in 2016. 

I have said for awhile that the Democrats faced an uphill battle in 2020 and I think that still remains true. President Trump is an incumbent who presides over a good economy, had a higher approval rating that Barack Obama had at this point and is beloved by the rank and file of his party. He's accomplished some of his campaign promises and has at least put up a fight at getting the rest done. That alone should help him a great deal.

Further more, there is some evidence that the various investigations in Washington will finally come out and some of President Trump's enemies will go to jail. Time will tell if there is anything to the Durham investigation but if it does the Democrats are screwed.

I also think that the major division in the Democratic Party is causing much of the trouble. The GOP is mostly united as the neocons and never-trumps are mostly irrelevant today. Not so in the Democratic Party as the neo-libs are fighting the economic socialists and the idpol people. The attacks on Tulsi Gabbard from Hillary Clinton are a good example of this, but far from the only one. It really looks like the lunatics are running the asylum and that Democratic leadership is completely failing to herd the cats. 

All that being said, a lot can happen between now and November. Complacency is Trump's biggest enemy here and there is a chance that everyone will just assume that he will win and will stay home. He needs to make sure that his "get out the vote" game is on target and if it is he should be golden. If it isn't then it won't matter if he raised more money... 

Mitt Romney had a secret Twitter account...

Mitt Romney. Bloomberg/Getty.

Senator Mitt Romney had a secret Twitter account that he used to defend himself from critics. Bloomberg. The account, @qaws9876, has since been locked. It has the mysterious username of Pierre Delecto and was only used to tweet 10 times, always in reply to someone else. He used the account to defend himself against journalists. When confronted about the account by a journalist Romney replied in French, "C'est moi."(it's me). 

Just spoke to @MittRomney on the phone, and asked him about Pierre Delecto. His only response: "C'est moi." Updated my story accordingly: https://t.co/kcfIopokWh

— McKay Coppins (@mckaycoppins) October 21, 2019

My Comment:
This is a total non-story that's only interesting because of how dumb it is. Using fake accounts is pretty stupid but not all that uncommon. Getting caught doing it is a lot less common and rarely is the person caught a US senator. It's a fairly pathetic thing to do and one that does not speak well for you if you get caught.

Romney comes off as pretty insufferable here. The Twitter handle, Pierre Delecto reminds me of Anthony Wiener's online handle, Carlos Danger. As fitting for Romney, his is more snooty and annoying. Plus he had to respond in French to the journalist..

I think it does speak to the character of Mitt Romney that he had to create a sock-puppet account to defend himself. It reminds me of the 2012 campaign where Romney just refused to defend himself. Apparently he thinks it's unbecoming to do so with his real name attached, which is probably why he lost in 2012.

Romney has been quite an embarrassment lately. He stabbed President Trump in the back twice. First he didn't endorse him in the 2016 race despite him endorsing in 2012. Later, Trump had his back in the 2020 Senate race in Utah, but all he has done as a senator is attack President Trump. I regret voting for him in 2012, he has proven himself to be a jackass.

United States Army signs research agreement with UFO group.

Warzone/The Drive. 

The United States Army has signed a research agreement with former Blink 182 frontman Tom Delonge's To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science. Warzone/The Drive. Though TTSA is more well known for it's UFO investigations, it is also involved in research with meta-materials. TTSA will be working with the Combat Capabilities Development Command. The research may be used for "material science, space-time metric engineering, quantum physics, beamed energy propulsion, and active camouflage". It is unclear what exactly TTSA has but it is rumored that they have advanced materials recovered from an UFO encounter, supposedly donated to the late Art Bell of Coast to Coast AM fame and then possibly purchased by Tom Delonge. No money is being exchanged between the US Army and TTSA. 

My Comment:

What a strange story. If you had told me years ago that the singer from Blink 182 had founded a UFO hunter group that managed to gain several high profile scientists and had acquired supposed UFO metamaterials from Art Bell and was working with the US Army to study in it I would have told you a crazy person. But that's the story that WarZone is telling and they aren't the only source for this story... Even a website as respected as Popular Mechanics is reporting the same thing.

To spell it out as clear as possible it sure looks like the Army believes the claims that TTSA has advanced materials and are willing to study them for military purposes. Those materials are supposedly from UFO encounters. 

This comes after the US Navy has admitted that some videos showing encounters between US military jets and unknown flying object are real and the objects are unidentified. Though they don't say those objects are extraterrestrial, that's still a huge admission.

So what's my take on it? I have no idea. I think there is a good chance that TTSA doesn't have anything interesting and the whole thing is a scam. It wouldn't be the first time that a paranormal group was making stuff up. 

But on the other hand, these kinds of groups don't have the level of support that TTSA has. They have John Podesta on their side, Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager and many former defense contractors. And they are being treated seriously by the media. It almost makes me think that something is there. 

And I guess it makes some sense. If the TTSA really did get a hold of some advanced materials, it would make sense for the Army to want to work with them. It doesn't matter where those materials came from but if they Army thinks they can make advances in their technology. And if those materials exist they can't let Russia or China research them alone, assuming they have access.   

That being said, even if these materials are real, that doesn't mean they are extra terrestrial in origin. They could be naturally occurring or result of some private research that remained secret for some reason. It's more likely that there is some kind of more reasonable explanation for what is going on here instead of a UFO invasion. 

Still, the fact that everyone, including the government and media, is all of a sudden taking UFO claims seriously is kind of a game changer. I still don't think that aliens are visiting us, but it's seems clear that something is going on. What that is is beyond me but I am hoping that we find out someday. Even if the TTSA is a scam and it all turns out to be nothing it's still an amazing story how a group founded by a musician got to be powerful enough to work with the United States Army. 

As an aside, I have to say that I do like Tom Delonge's music. Blink 182 was a little to silly for me to like but Angels and Airwaves is pretty good. Here's one of their songs...

Hillary Clinton suggests that Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein are Russian assets.

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. 

Hillary Clinton suggested in an interview that both congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and third party Green Party Jill Stein are Russian assets. NBC News. Clinton didn't mention Gabbard by name but said a Democratic candidate was getting "groomed" by the Russians for a third party run. When asked if it was Gabbard, Clinton said "If the nesting doll fits..." Gabbard blasted Clinton on Twitter calling her a coward who should join the race. Clinton also said that Jill Stein was a Russian asset and that "they" couldn't win without a third party challenger. 

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

My Comment:
I think Hillary Clinton might be losing her mind. Normally I would say that this was a cynical attempt to hurt a potential primary challenger to a hypothetical Hillary Clinton run, but it seems like she really believes that both Gabbard and Stein are Russian assets. 

This is, of course, an extremely serious accusation. Clinton essentially accused a military officer and current member of congress of being a traitor. And she provided no evidence of her claims. There is no evidence at all of either Gabbard or Stein actively working with the Russians.

It's also not clear at all that the Russians want a 2nd term of Donald Trump. They hated Clinton yes, but that was based on her personality and policies, not her party. It's not a guarantee that the Russians wouldn't prefer a President Sanders or Biden over a 2nd term of President Trump.

It really seems like the Democrats playbook will be from now on that anyone who disagrees with the Democrats will be accused of being a Russian stooge. It has happened to President Trump, it happened to his supporters, it happened to Jill Stein and now it's happening to Tulsi Gabbard.

I think this might be personal for Hillary Clinton as well. She never took any responsibility for losing in 2016. She blames the few votes for Jill Stein got for losing, despite the fact that she didn't campaign in Wisconsin and insulted millions of people and was totally unlikable. Gabbard criticized Clinton at the last debate so she probably wanted revenge on her as well.

It seems pretty clear that Clinton is considering jumping back into the race. Why else would she be attacking Gabbard so publicly? She could have dealt with Gabbard in a more private way but she had to give an interview that went viral. I think she's jumping back in.

I do have to wonder why so many Democrats hate Tusli Gabbard. Though I like her foreign policy, Gabbard is just as left wing as any of the other Democrats. She's anti-gun, pro-socialism and generally opposed to many of the beliefs I hold dear. She's better than the rest of the field, largely because of her more isolationist policy, but that's damning by faint praise. That being said, she didn't back the United States pulling out of Syria even though she had been demanding that since the beginning.

I think the reason Democrats hate Gabbard is the fact that she's and anti-war candidate in a party that is no longer anti-war. Back in the Bush years it was the cool thing to be anti-war, but as soon as Barack Obama got elected the anti-war movement died. President Trump and some of the Republicans have taken up that mantel but there isn't room in the Democratic Party for someone who would have fit in just a few years ago...

Massive gun battle erupts in Mexico, with the government succesfully capturing the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Vehicles burn in the streets of  Culiacan, Mexico. LA Times/AFP.

A massive gun battle erupted in Culican Mexico as an operation to capture the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, Ovido Guzman Lopez was apparently successful. LA Times. Men armed with automatic rifles and riding in technicals were seen shooting at each other. Mexican media have reported that Ovido Guzman Lopez, son of the infamous El Chapo Guzman, was captured alive but the government has not confirmed that. The battle involved fighters from the Sinaloa cartel and the Mexican Army and the newly formed National Guard. 

Así las cosas al norte de #Culiacán. Momentos exactos de la balacera captados por el compañero reportero Policiaco, Ernesto Martínez. pic.twitter.com/o53uBLqCWr

— Juan Pablo Pérez Díaz (@PerezDiazMX) October 17, 2019

Here is more video of the intense fighting that has broken out on the streets of Culiacan, Sinaloa after El Chapo's son was arrested

The individual in this video appears to be firing a .50 caliber sniper rifle that is used to attack hard targets pic.twitter.com/ALrpSgJf33

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 18, 2019

The narcos are freeing prisoners to help them fight again the military in Culiacán pic.twitter.com/EuwOP4Bg8y

— Papicheco🇲🇽 (@pimpcheco) October 17, 2019

#ÚLTIMAHORA 🔴| Momentos de pánico vivieron personas en un restaurante y centros comerciales de #Culiacán en Sinaloa, #México, donde se han desatado una serie de balaceras en varios puntos de la ciudad, por la detención de Ovidio Guzmán López, hijo del 'Chapo'. pic.twitter.com/9a8ixm2Vmy

— Edna Jaramillo G. (@EdnaJaramillotv) October 18, 2019

My Comment:
Not too much to add with this one, just some incredible combat footage coming out of Mexico today. This was a real battle in a real war, even if nobody seems to want to acknowledge it.

From what I understand, the initial operation to attack Lopez was a success but fighting broke out as the cartel members came back in force in an attempt to rescue him. That seems to have failed, though the situation is still fluid.

It's fairly amazing how well armed the cartel members are. I have seen (and posted) video of them using heavy weapons, including heavy machine guns mounted on trucks, rocket propelled grenades and even anti-material rifles. These fighters were loaded for bear and it's pretty impressive that the Mexican forces were able to fight them off.

Taking down Lopez will do quite a bit of damage to the Sinaloa cartel. There is always a power struggle when one of these leaders go down and it may lead to a civil war in the cartel as various factions try to gain control. Indeed, that was already happening with the Guzmen brothers facing an attempt by cartel co-founder Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada to take over. That effort probably got a boost today

Other cartels may try to take advantage of the situation as well. The Sinaloa cartel is weak now without their leader and may be targeted by other cartels. This could lead to even more violence and death.

I do wonder why Mexico's president authorized this operation.  Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Almo) has said he was going to end the war in Mexico but this seems like a massive escalation. This will almost certainly lead to more violence as the cartels fight with each other due to the weakness of Sinaloa cartel. And they may even begin more attacks on the government as a reprisal...

EDIT: More video

An Armed sicario walks into a restaurant holding an Ak telling everyone to evacuate the area, because all hell is about to break loose. This was before everything started. #Culiacan #Sinaloa pic.twitter.com/sROA3poujL

— el vale (@elvale_1) October 18, 2019

Footage just in from Sinaloa. Seems like cartel members are shooting blind right now whilst civilians look on #Culiacan pic.twitter.com/YYm5Y9kTNR

— ™ (@BZR924) October 18, 2019

#BREAKING Update: Culiacán, Mexico, - Another video shows smoke covering the skyline with the sound of heavy gunfire as security forces caputred one of El Chapo's son's.#Culiacán #Mexicopic.twitter.com/UFnjFjzkoc

— Shark NewsWires (@SharkNewsWires) October 18, 2019

Sinaloa Cartel members arriving with Rocket Launchers in retaliation to El Chapos sons being held captive/Dead #Culiacán pic.twitter.com/jniaLLBeOx

— ™ (@BZR924) October 18, 2019

This BROKE me. “Dad can we get up now”.😔 #Culiacan pic.twitter.com/7uDd9HvXyx

— Francisco Velasco (@FranciscoEfV) October 17, 2019

Some of the cartel gunmen in #Culiacán are incredibly heavily armed - here we see an M249 Para machine gun and an M72 LAW anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launcher (!!!) amongst other weapons.pic.twitter.com/XhU1ljNOJ2

— Jimmy (@JimmySecUK) October 18, 2019

EDIT #2: He's been released. Unbelievable.

JUST IN: Mexican security forces let 'El Chapo' Guzman's son go free, retreated to protect lives - security minister. More https://t.co/RceUzKg4WY pic.twitter.com/DLtZ6Z3OFj

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) October 18, 2019