President Trump updates travel ban adding six more countries to the list.

President Donald Trump. BBC/Reuters.

President Donald Trump has added six more countries to the travel ban list. BBC. People from Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan, Tanzania, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar will now no longer be eligible for certain kinds of visas, though people will be able to visit America from those countries. These countries have failed to meet security standards set by the US government and the government will work with them to try to get their standards to an acceptable level. The government will suspend residency visa for four of the countries, Nigeria, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Myanmar, while people from Sudan and Tanzania will no longer be able to apply for "diversity visas". The six new countries join Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela and North Korea on the travel ban list. 

My Comment:

I think this is a good move by President Trump. Of these countries, Nigeria, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar have active Islamic insurgencies. Eritrea and Tanzania are more of a mystery for me but they are close to conflict areas. Of course, the ban never had that much to do with Muslims in the first place as it always targeted countries that were either active enemies of America or countries that had major security flaws. 

Both Nigeria and Kyrgyzstan are one of the few places in the world where ISIS is still very active. Boko Haram is still killing people in Nigeria and Kyrgyzstan still has some ISIS holdouts as well. Blocking immigration from these countries ensure that we won't get sleeper cells from ISIS. 

This is also a way to ensure that these countries actually pick up the pace and fix their security problems. A couple of these countries have very little excuse for not having better security standards. Nigeria for example is one of the more modern African countries and has no excuse for not meeting out standards. 

I also want to point out that countries can earn their way off of this list. Chad was famously lifted from the ban after they started sharing intelligence with the United States and improved their visa security. The new countries on the list could easily follow in their footsteps and improve their standards as well and if they do so they will likely be dropped from the list. Unlike the other six countries still on the list, none of these countries are American enemies like Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea or basket-cases of war and chaos, like Libya, Somalia and Yemen. They can earn their way out. 

This ban could have an effect on American industry. Both Nigeria and Myanmar are big sources of labor for companies that rely on such things. This travel ban will cut off supplies for those countries and force them to seek other sources for employees. If they cannot find another foreign source they will be forced to raise wages in an effort to hire more American citizens. This is a loss for them but a pretty big win for American workers if it works out in the end. I don't think this was a motivating factor for the travel ban but it will be a decent side effect. 

I have always supported these travel bans as I had seen first hand that people from many countries on the list were not who they said they were. I have no doubt that ISIS and al-Qaeda, along with other groups like Iranian sleeper cells, were using our weak immigration system to enter the country. That threat is now mostly gone due to the actions of President Trump. It's one of the reasons I voted for him in 2016 and will do so again in 2020. 

Virginia house passes new gun control laws, included the hated red flag laws.

Virginia governor Ralph Northam. Wall Street Journal/AP.

The Virginia house has passed seven new gun control laws including the hated red flag laws. Wall Street Journal. In addition to the red flag laws, a ban on private sales, a one handgun per month limit, new penalties for firearm storage, forcing people to report firearm thefts within 24 hours, allowing localities to have their own gun laws and making it illegal for people under permanent protection order. Many of these bills have been passed in the senate as well and will await Governor Northam's signature. However, the most controversial bills that would ban so called "assault weapons" have not made it out of committee. The new laws have come after a massive revolt among Virginia citizens who have rejected new laws. Many counties and cities have launched 2nd amendment sanctuaries and will not enforce unconstitutional laws.  The laws were passed despite a massive peaceful protest against the laws during Virginia's lobby day.

My Comment:

A dark day for civil rights in Virginia. The vast majority of these laws would do nothing to prevent gun violence or mass shootings and they were specifically crafted to punish gun owners. Indeed, it seems like many of these laws run counter to the goal of preventing violence. 

For example, the requirement to report a gun theft within 24 hours obviously creates incentive to not report the theft. If someone steals your gun and you don't find out about it right away and you report it you could be criminally liable. Same thing if you are simply too busy to do so, you could be charged for doing the right thing and trying to get your property back. 

And the one handgun a month just seems like it's there to punish gun owners. Common advice for new shooters of handguns is to buy both a carry gun in 9mm or whatever and then a .22lr gun for practice. This laws seems crafted just to punish new owners. It's almost like the people that crafted the bill think that people commit crimes by dual wielding pistols like in video games. It's totally ridiculous. 

No law has more potential for abuse and even death than the stupid red flag law. Those laws remove due process and do not allow people to avoid retribution from people that want to sic law enforcement on them. These laws will end in death because the natural reaction for people getting woken up by armed men at night will be to open fire. Even if they were able to protect peoples due-process rights, the idea that people should have their guns taken away on the word of someone who is angry with them is an obvious oversight. 

The good news is that the AR ban seems less likely to pass. The gun confiscation one is dead and even the one with the fake "grandfather" clause seems less likely to pass at this point. Those laws were the ones that would most likely lead to even more violence if they were to pass, but it looks like they were dead due to massive outcry. I could be wrong about this though, and gun owners in Virginia shouldn't assume that they are gone for good. 

I know that these laws will be challenged in court but I don't know if they will be overturned. The red-flag laws in other states have not been gotten rid of so far even though they are obvious infringements of 2nd and 4th amendment rights. Same with universal background checks and storage laws. My hope is the Supreme Court will strike down some of these laws but who knows if that will happen? 

I do have to say that the people of Virginia should not give up the fight. In the next election it is critical that they vote out these Democrats. If that isn't possible I think they should take up the offer of West Virginia Governor Jim Justice and secede from Virginia and join with West Virginia, which is a state that actually respects civil rights. One way or another the people of Virginia need to defend their gun rights. 

Saudi air defenses thwart attack on Aramco launched by Iran backed Houthi rebels.

An Aramco oil facility. Wall Street Journal/AFP/Getty. 

Saudi Arabian air defenses have thwarted a missile attack targeting Aramco oil facilities. Wall Street Journal. The missile attack comes four months after a massive missile and drone attack greatly damaged two of Saudi Arabia's main oil facilities, cutting off 50% of Saudi's oil production. It also follows a major ballistic missile strike that killed over 100 Yemeni fighters. Houthi rebels took credit for the attack but Saudi Arabia and America blamed their backer, Iran. The attack may complicate secret peace talks between Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni Houthis. 

My Comment:

Looks like the Saudi Air defense worked better this time around. They were embarrassed by the last major attack where Iranian drones and missile penetrated their defenses and greatly damaged the Saudi's oil processing facilities. This time they had a much better outcome. 

The article didn't say what kind of missiles were used but I am assuming that they were using the Burkan 2 missiles that they have used in previous attacks. Those are serious weapons and I am guessing that the Saudis had pretty serious defenses to defeat them. As the attack on the Yemeni soldiers proved, they can do a massive amount of damage. 

I don't think it really matters who gets blamed for the attack. Even if Iran denies the attack, they still support the Yemeni Houthi rebels so even if they didn't plan the attack themselves they bear responsibility for it. The Houthis are their proxy army in Yemen so anything they do is on Iran. 

Of course Iran would have loved it if the Saudis hadn't been able to defend these sites. Not only would they cripple their main enemy outside of the United States they would bolster their own oil industry, which has been hampered by international sanctions. Even if they didn't order the attack they certainly would have benefited from it. 

As for the peace talks I am not sure much will come from them. Iran doesn't want the war to end because it is tying down the Saudi military and costing them millions of dollars. The suffering of the Yemeni people does not matter to them at all. The Saudis and maybe even the Houthis themselves may want the war to end but I don't think it will be up to them. And I also don't think there is a military solution either. Neither of the major players, the Saudis and the Iranians, have deployed enough forces to actually win the war. 

Coronavirus deaths passes 130 as America considers a travel ban.

A nurse checks the temperature of a patient in Yueyang, China. Reuters. 

Deaths in the Coronavirus outbreak has passed 130 as America is considering a travel ban from China. Reuters. The Trump administration has not so far not put a flight ban into place but all options remain on the table. Airlines across the world are reducing flights to and from China due to fears of the virus. As of this writing 5,974 confirmed cases have been found. In Germany, the first cases of human to human transmission outside of China occurred as four people were infected by a colleague that had worked in China. How deadly the virus will be is still unknown due to unreliability of Chinese data that might not count all infected. 

My Comment:

Another update to the Coronavirus update. A lot has happened since my last post on the subject. The virus how now surpassed the number of infections in China that SARS was able to do back in 2002-2003 and it did it in a lot less time. 

I think a travel ban is more than justified at this point. There are cases in most of China and it's pretty clear that the virus is out of control. With almost 6000 confirmed cases and many more people being monitored for the disease I think the risk is strong enough that a travel ban is more than justified. 

And given the news from Germany it's clear that the virus can spread outside of China. Though that was always likely we now have confirmation that people returning from China could spread the disease to others if they aren't quarantined. If these people are allowed to come here they can and will infect other people. 

I don't think that screening people at airports is going to do much. If someone is symptomatic than it can catch people but it will allow people who are infected but not showing symptoms to pass through easily. And there has already been one alleged case of someone using fever reducers to sneak through the screening. 

Also a concern is that this virus can spread before symptoms even happen. There is some evidence that the virus can do this and if it is true than there is pretty much no point in screening people at airports. Anyone infected will have already likely passed their infection on to others. 

I don't really believe the numbers from China. I think there are probably a lot more cases out there and more than a few deaths. Some of that is expected as some people won't get severely ill and may play off the virus as a cold. But with the medical system falling apart in Wuhan I think that many cases are falling through the cracks. Plus China has never had a good relationship with the truth...

How dangerous the virus really is continues to be unclear. With only 132 deaths and a few recoveries, it's going to be unclear how deadly the virus really is. Some of the people in critical condition will die and many will recover but we won't know how many of each until some more time passes. The numbers I have seen has been around 3 to 5% which is a very high casualty rate but not anywhere near as deadly as even SARS was. 

What is clear is that the Coronavirus spreads pretty easily. It seems to be comparable to the flu but with a much higher death rate. If people don't take the normal precautions against this virus, like covering their mouths when they sneeze or cough, washing their hands or avoiding public gatherings than they could get infected about as easily as the flu or a cold. 

Even if the death rate remains low, the virus could easily cause a panic and economic disruption. Already the markets are not doing well in China due to investors fears. If the virus becomes widespread it could cause a recession that could do more damage than the virus itself. 

US Supreme Court rules that President Trump's administration can bar green cards from people dependent on public benefits.

File photo of the Supreme Court. NBC/Reuters.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that a new Trump administration rule that allows denial of green cards based on immigrants taking benefits can go into effect. NBC News. The rule change redefines the "public charge" rule that allows the government to deny green cards for people likely to be dependent on public benefits. In the past this only counted cash benefits but the new rule would include things like Medicaid, SNAP/food stamps and federal housing assistance. The implementation was blocked by lower courts and the case is still working its way through the judicial system. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas condemned the wide practice of lower judges implementing nationwide injunctions and called on the court to review the practice. 

My Comment:

This isn't a ruling on the legality of the new public charge rule. That rule could eventually be overturned in the court, so it's not like this is the last we will here about this issue. However, it is true that the rule can go into effect as the case works through the courts. I will say that given the fact that the Justices ruled in favor of the state here, I would think that the rule change will hold. My guess is that the lower courts will be overturned yet again. 

Before I get into the immigration issue, I have to agree with Justices Gorsuch and Thomas. I do think that the lower court judges are going way off the reservation with these constant injunctions that prevent the executive branch from enacting any policy. We have seen this play out so many times now where a leftist judge issues an injunction on flimsy justification and it eventually gets overturned by a higher court. But the government loses months of time during the legal battle and a lot of damage is done in the meantime. I do think this process needs to be changed as it's not right for an unelected judge in a lower court to make policy for the entire country when the legal issues are not decided in a court of law yet. 

As for the immigration issue, of course we shouldn't give green cards to people who will be dependent on public benefits! This seems so obvious that it seems hard to believe that anyone would disagree with it. Of course the Democrats want these people as voters so they will be willing to go against their own constituents but I doubt their other voters will be happy. Of course, so many Democrats seem to buy into the "everything the GOP does is racist even if it benefits us directly" sham that it's possible the voters will be upset about this. 

Nobody wants to pay for people to come here if they aren't going to contribute to society. The whole idea of immigration is that it is beneficial to bring people in who have good skills or can bring something to the table that is lacking in America. If someone comes here and immediately goes onto one of our welfare programs they aren't contributing anything and are in fact taking money away from people who are more entitled two it. You can be opposed to welfare or in support of it but everyone should agree that the system won't work if we allow all of the worlds population to go on American welfare. 

It makes little sense to argue that someone who comes here and takes welfare cash is a public charge but someone who comes here and gets Medicaid and food stamps is not. You really have to be among the poorest of the poor to get on these programs so it's pretty clear that these people aren't contributing to the United States. No matter if it is cash payments or health care, you are depriving American citizens of their benefits and you shouldn't be allowed to stay here. 

It's unclear how many people will be effected by this ruling. From what I understand not many people are admitted on green cards that take public benefits before this ruling in the first place. However, even if it's only a few people it's still a positive. We bear no responsibility for the people that want to come to this country so it's a good thing that we are going to be letting in fewer freeloaders. 

Finally, I do have to say that President Trump has been a fairly effective president on immigration issues. While progress has been slow due to activist judges he is putting into effect new laws and rules which have slowed to progress of both legal and illegal immigration. I have seen a lot of demoralizing comments on social media, probably mostly posted by anti-Trump shills, who claim he has done nothing, but it's clear that this rule, the construction on the border wall and even getting Mexico to help out prove that isn't the case. He hasn't been perfect and he has been hampered by court rulings but he is doing more on the immigration than any other President in recent history. 

US intelligence plane crashes in Afghanistan.

A Raytheon Sentinel, which is the British equivalent to the Boeing E-11a. British Government Photo.

A US E-11a intelligence plane has crashed in Afghanistan. BBC. The plan crashed in Taliban territory but the US military does not believe that the plane was brought down by enemy fire. The E-11a is a fairly rare airplane as this was one of only four used by the Air Force. It is a converted private jet used to monitor communications and boost connections between ground units, which is extremely useful in the mountainous terrain in Afghanistan. It is unclear how many people were on board the plane when it crashed but there are no reports of survivors. 

My Comment:

Just a quick post on this subject. This story is mostly notable for the fact that the E-11a's are extremely rare. We only have three more of these jets so losing 1/4 of our E-11a's is a pretty big deal. They are rare aircraft and losing any of them is not a good thing to say the least. 

It's very unclear why this plane crashed. The Pentagon claims that it wasn't brought down by enemy fire and I tend to believe that. I doubt that the Taliban has any weapons that could hit a jet flying so high in the sky. My guess is that the crash was due to mechanical failure or some kind of accident, which is common enough. 

It's possible that these planes were being used too much. We only had four of them and my guess is that they were all needed in Afghanistan. It's a very difficult country to operate in and without planes like this one flying it can be very hard to communicate. With that being the case it's possible we were overworking these planes and that could have lead to this accident. This problem will of course now get much worse with one of the planes being destroyed. 

It doesn't look like there were any survivors in this crash. It's unclear how many people were on board but it's going to be at least a couple, which is tragic of course. Any death is tragic but one at such a late stage in the Afghanistan War is doubly so. We might finally be pulling out of there soon so let's hope that these are some of the last casualties we have in Afghanistan. 

Militants on motorcycles kill 20 troops in Mali.

A Malian military patch. AFP/BBC.

Twenty soldiers in Mali were killed in a motorcycle raid. BBC. The raid was targeting the Sokolo military camp. Five more soldiers were injured in the attack while 60 survived. The militants also took control of military equipment and destroyed some of the things they couldn't take with them. Mali has had problems with Islamic militants including al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates. The attacks come after a large amount of violence in the region. 

My Comment:

Just a quick post to remind people that Mali is still a mess. Even though France has deployed many troops and the Malian forces have been trying to control the situation it doesn't seem to be working. It seems these kinds of attacks happen all too frequently. 

It does seem like a very effective tactic. Motorcycles and similar vehicles are quick moving and can easily be used in lighting raids against bases. They can be used to bypass defenses, surprise the enemy and then escape. 

There are, of course, defenses against these kinds of attacks. Digging in and using heavy weapons like machine guns would likely help quite a bit. Just having alert troops keeping an eye out for these kinds of attacks could eliminate the element of surprise. And physical barriers could keep these bikes from being used. 

But I don't think the military of Mali is that great. Though the tactic is effective, this isn't anywhere near the first time these militants have used this tactic. The fact that it still seems to work very well means that they are not adapting to the enemies tactics. 

As for who was responsible for this attack, it could be ISIS or al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is more likely as they have one of the largest and most effective affiliate branches operating in the region. ISIS has a presence, but they are a meager player in the Mali conflict. 

Coronavirus death toll rises to 41 with more than 1000 cases confirmed.

People wear facemasks as they enter Beijing. Reuters. 

The death toll from the Coronavirus outbreak in China has risen to 41 with more than 1000 cases confirmed. Reuters. All of the deaths have occurred in China so far but cases have been found in Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, France, South Korea and the United States. More than 10 cities in China have been put into lockdown, including the source of the outbreak, Wuhan. In Wuhan, Chinese authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital from scratch as the already existing hospitals are becoming overwhelmed. The new Coronavirus is causing concern due to it's ease of spread and because it can cause pneumonia. Most of the dead have been people with pre-existing conditions and poor health. 

My Comment:

I have to admit that this story is starting to concern me a little. The containment lockdowns are spreading rapidly and now effects more than 40 million people. China isn't being totally honest at what is going on and it's hard to get good news from the country. Though the effort to bring the virus under control are continuing, it might already be too late. 

The fact that China is building a brand new hospital in Wuhan makes me think that things are not going well there. It seems pretty obvious that the current hospitals are being overwhelmed, and video I have seen on social media seems to back this up. It strikes me as a desperate move to both relieve the pressure on their other hospitals and to concentrate all the Coronavirus patients in one place. 

However, this is not just a China problem anymore. With the incubation period for this strain of Coronavirus being so long and no travel bans or screening put into place until very recently, it's very possible that there are people who have the virus that are in other countries that don't even know it yet. And some reports I have seen said it was possible to spread this virus without openly showing symptoms. 

That being said, I don't think it's time to panic just yet. This virus is extremely dangerous but it's not world ending plague dangerous. It's not even on the level of Spanish Flu, which killed millions of people in the aftermath of World War I. It mostly seems to be killing older people with compromised immune systems, much like the flu does. 

Unfortunately it seems to be quite a bit more deadly than the normal flu and fairly easy to spread. If the admittedly unreliable numbers from China are right than this virus has a death rate of around 4% which doesn't sound to bad until you remember that the flu doesn't have anywhere close to that high of a mortality rate. 

If that death rate holds and the infection isn't brought under control than we might be in some trouble. And the rate of death could go up, not so much because the virus changes in anyway but because the medical system could get overrun and wouldn't be able to treat anyone. Of course there is evidence is that Wuhan is already their so we may have already hit the ceiling in terms of mortality rate. Let's hope so at least. Either way we should find out for sure in the coming days and weeks. 

I do think it is time to start thinking about taking steps to protect yourself from Coronavirus no matter where you live. Simple things like washing your hands, not touching your face, covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze and avoiding crowded areas if you can can go a long way in keeping you and your family safe. It might also be a good idea to stock up on necessary supplies like food and medicine (an ammo if you live in a free country), not so much because I expect those things to run out but because the risk of doing so now and getting infected is much less than it will be in a few weeks if this outbreak isn't brought under control. 

Though the deaths this outbreak could cause will be tragic, the real danger is panic, civil disorder and disruption for the economy. If the virus isn't brought under control people will refuse to go to work and the engine that powers the global economy might be temporally halted. And there is a real chance that people will be so upset with the various governments of the world that some of them may face resistance. 

That being said, I don't want to be a fearmonger. There are enough of those out there already and I do want to say that even if the worst case scenario happens and this virus goes out of control, it won't be a civilization ending thing. Hell, the Spanish Flu was way worse than this has potential to be and society chugged along just fine after it burned itself out. This virus isn't anywhere near as bad, it's just the fact that we haven't dealt with a widespread outbreak in the United States in a very long time. The vast majority of people that get sick won't die and things will eventually get back to normal. 

Speaking of fearmongers, there are a lot of them active right now. It pays to keep in mind that though the government of China isn't to be trusted, neither are random people on the internet. You shouldn't worry too much about this being an escaped bioweapon or other such nonsense and you should obviously avoid anyone claiming that some stupid herb will cure Coronavirus. Just keep your skeptic glasses on and remind yourself that people on the internet are mostly full of it. 

Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend and alleged pimp Ghislaine Maxwell's e-mails hacked.

Ghislaine Maxwell. The Daily Mail/Mega.

Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend and alleged pimp Ghislaine Maxwell had her e-mails hacked. The Daily Mail. Maxwell's lawyer said that one of her e-mail accounts was accidentally released in court documents related to the Virginia Guiffre defamation case. Her email account was hacked shortly after. Prince Andrew could be at risk if those e-mails are released as he is known to have talked to Maxwell about the Virginia Guiffre case, where Guiffre accused the Prince of having sex with her while she was underage. Maxwell's current whereabouts are unknown but it known that in addition to the defamation case, she is being investigated by the FBI.

My Comment:

Looks like the courts screwed up in this case and allowed Maxwell's e-mail account to leak. This made her vulnerable to hacking and it looks like it happened fairly quickly after the account name was found. This is a huge mistake by the court and is the kind of thing that should not happen, regardless of the public interest of the case. 

These e-mails, if they are released, could be extremely damaging to both Maxwell herself, but to many of the other players in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Most notable among those is Prince Andrew, who is alleged to have raped Virginia Guiffre. Andrew had a horrible interview with the BBC and was relieved of his royal duties and I always thought it might be because of further revelations being on the way. 

As and aside, I thought that the Prince Harry/Meghan Markle scandal was a planned distraction. Even if the two wanted out you can't help but to wonder why they chose this time to do it. My guess is that the Royal Family wanted the Prince Andrew story killed so they had Harry take the fall. I'm far from an expert on the Royals though as I have always said that Americans fought a war so we wouldn't have to care about the personal lives of monarchs. 

The big question now is who hacked the email account? Who did it will probably determine if this information will come out. It's possible that the hacker was some kind of civilian that wanted this information to come out. If that's the case we should see what secrets the account had. Given the extreme interest in this case and the fact that pretty much everyone wants more information about the crimes, I think it's very possible that this is the case. 

However, we should also realize that it could have been a foreign government that hacked this e-mail account. I have always maintained that Jeffrey Epstein was running a blackmail scheme on behalf of a foreign or domestic intelligence service. Maxwell knew much about the blackmail and probably had very valuable information for foreign intelligence agencies. Anyone named in these e-mails could end up being blackmailed as well...  

2020 candidate Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for defamation for calling her a "Russian asset".

Tulsi Gabbard. Reuters.

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton for $50 million after Clinton called her a "Russian asset". Reuters. The lawsuit says that Clinton was motivated by malice after Gabbard endorsed her 2016 primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. Gabbard claims that Clinton's statements damaged her 2020 run. Clinton said that Russia was grooming one of the 2020 candidates and later confirmed she was talking about Gabbard. Gabbard faces an uphill battle against Clinton as the United States has very strict laws on slander and libel.

My Comment:

I think this case is a very good example of why the defamation laws in America need to change. Under the current laws I sincerely doubt that Gabbard will win this case. Judges rarely rule in favor of plaintiffs in defamation cases and the level of proof needed is extremely high. 

In order for Gabbard to win she would need to prove the following things. 1st, she would have to prove she isn't a Russian asset. That shouldn't be hard as the idea is pretty stupid in the first place. 2nd, she would have to prove that Hillary Clinton was acting out of malice. This is harder as it's very hard to prove that Clinton didn't actually believe what she was saying and that she wanted to take revenge on her. Finally, she would have to prove that Clinton wasn't just exaggerating or using hyperbole, which seems almost impossible to prove. If this case went to trial I can't see Gabbard winning.

Personally I do think that Hillary Clinton was trying to defame Gabbard. The women do not like each other and I think Clinton took it personally when Gabbard endorsed Sanders. That was hardly the only thing Gabbard did as she was and is very critical of Clinton's foreign policy. Gabbard is extremely opposed to Clinton's wing of the party and is one of Clinton's most visible critics. Clinton also likes to blame other people for her failures and Gabbard could potentially block the candidate Clinton supports in 2020, which is probably Elizabeth Warren. 

I also don't believe for a second that Clinton really thinks that Gabbard is a Russian asset. The whole idea is stupid and I don't think anyone really believes it. Just because Gabbard is opposed to new wars and wants better relations with Russia does not mean that she is some kind of spy for Russia or otherwise a traitor. 

However, I do think that there is a chance that Clinton could settle this case. Much like CNN settled with Nick Sandmann, the boy in a MAGA hat that CNN called racist, Clinton probably desperately wants to avoid discovery. A whole lot of embarrassing or possibly criminal information about Clinton could come out during the course of a trial. If the case isn't dismissed, which is a real possibility considering Clinton's connections and power, I am guessing it will be settled out of court with a non-disclosure agreement... 

As for Gabbard's presidential run, I don't see this helping her out much. Though there is a large group of Democrats that hate Clinton, most of them are already locked up in the Bernie Sanders camp, which also had a recent skirmish with Clinton. The rest of the Democrats seem to hate Gabbard for both her opposition of Clinton and her foreign policy. Gabbard is popular among Republicans, who also despise Hillary Clinton, but they tend to not vote in Democrat primaries. I don't see this move moving her polling numbers at all. 

China to shut down travel in the city of Wuhan to prevent the spread of the new Coronavirus.

A subway in China. BBC. 

China is shutting down travel in the city of Wuhan, which has 11 million people, to prevent the spread of the new Coronavirus. BBC. The flu-like respiratory virus has spread in China infecting at least 500 people and kill 17 of them. The virus, 2019-nCoV, is related to both Sars virus and the common cold. China has shut down trains, planes, subways, buses and ferries. Events and attractions are being shut down and residents in Wuhan are being advised to not leave the city. However, the incident is happening during the Lunar New Year celebration, which is a week long holiday where many Chinese people travel. The Coronavirus outbreak has not yet warranted a emergency declaration. 

My Comment:

Something to keep an eye on. This new virus looks like it could cause some problems if it is allowed to spread. The fatality rate is around 4% as far as I can tell, which is much higher than the flu and other similar viruses but it also seems to spread as quickly as the cold or flu. That's a fairly dangerous virus, even if most of the people who died were also sick with other illnesses or in poor health. 

I was going to write this off as another medical scare like Sars or the Zika virus, the latter of which I didn't even bother covering. Though the virus is a bit more deadly than some of the other virus that have broken out in the past, I wasn't worried about the spread of the virus. 

However, the Chinese government appears to be taking this outbreak extremely seriously. You don't just shut down a city of 11 million people if you don't think the situation is a bad one. Especially during a holiday week where millions of people travel and stimulate the economy. 

It makes me wonder if this outbreak is worse than previously thought. China is far from truthful when it comes to things that are embarrassing and they have reasons to lie about this situation. They don't want to cause a panic and don't want the economic disruption a virus panic would cause. 

That being said, no matter the size of the outbreak, China appears to be doing the right thing. By cutting off Wuhan and making the people there don't get into close contact with each other, they can snuff out the virus before it spreads. It is unfortunate that the virus has spread before they took this action, but it should make the virus much more controllable. If they can keep the quarantine up the virus should quickly die out in a week or two.    

I think the virus could be a problem if it does spread. A virus that spreads as easy as the flu but has a fatality rate of 4% could kill quite a few people if it becomes widespread. It wouldn't be hugely bad compared to something like the Spanish Flu or even the West Africa Ebola outbreak, but it could cause a pretty big panic and do damage to the economy. It would sicken a lot of people and probably kill some people who were sick with other diseases, but the main damage would be psychological. 

Hillary Clinton claims that nobody likes Bernie Sanders.

Hillary Clinton in 2016. Gage Skidmore.

Hillary Clinton started a firestorm of controversy after being extremely critical of 2020 candidate Bernie Sanders. Fox News. Clinton, in a wide ranging interview with the Hollywood Reporter, said she wasn't sure if she would support Sanders in the 2020 race. He also criticized the Sanders campaign for tolerating a culture of allowing people to attack the female candidates in the race, calling supporters "Bernie Bros". She also claimed that "nobody likes him" and that she believed Elizabeth Warren when she said Sanders said a woman couldn't win in 2020. Clinton walked back the remarks on Twitter. 

I thought everyone wanted my authentic, unvarnished views!

But to be serious, the number one priority for our country and world is retiring Trump, and, as I always have, I will do whatever I can to support our nominee.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 22, 2020

The Hollywood Reporter story can be found here.

My Comment:
Seems Hillary Clinton is still bitter about her race against Bernie Sanders. This is more than a little odd as she beat Sanders in the end and he ended up endorsing and campaigning for her in the 2016 race. As is typical for Clinton she is blaming everyone in the world, no matter how little their actual impact was, instead of herself for losing in 2016. I thought that Sanders sold out to help her at a high personal cost for himself and alienating many of his supporters, so I really don't get why Clinton is so bitter.

I also think it's pretty obviously wrong that nobody likes Bernie Sanders. He has a ton of support and is consistently near the top in the 2020 polls. He has endorsements from politicians and celebrities and had a lot of grass roots support in 2016. Even Republicans have a bit of respect for him as he is less hated than Hillary Clinton.

This story obviously angered a lot of Bernie Sanders fans on social media and elsewhere. Not only did Clinton stab Sanders in the back she repeated the slur that Sanders supporters are all male and sexist against women. Quite understandably, they are quite upset about this. Several anti-Clinton hashtags trended on Twitter and more than a few people were getting into fights online over the issue.

It's not like relations were good between the Clinton camp and the Sanders camp in the first place. They correctly blame Clinton and the DNC for rigging the primary against them, going so far as to give her the debate questions. The also, incorrectly, believe that Donald Trump would not be president today if Sanders has been the candidate.

I also see this as a move for Clinton to back Elizabeth Warren's failing campaign. Warren got into it with Sanders over a report that he said a woman can't win the presidency. I personally don't believe that for a second due to the fact that Warren is a habitual liar. But it's clear that the Warren camp wants to paint Sanders as a sexist and this is Clinton trying to bolster that effort. It's no secret that Warren and Clinton are close, so it's fairly predictable.

Of course it's not like the Sanders camp is free from sin here. Project Veritas has released a series of video showing how radical their staffers are. They are saying things like rich people need to be killed and Republicans should be sent to reeducation camps. And the infighting between the progressive wing of the party and the old guard neoliberals is well documented and far from civil.

But I do have to say that I feel a bit for Sanders and his supporters. I despise Sanders and his politics and his supporters are misguided at best, but they are being unfairly tarred by the media. They are many things, most of them a bad, but I have never bought them as sexist and I always felt it was a total slander.

I also think it's a fairly disturbing trend being pushed by the media and the Democrats. Whenever someone criticizes a Democrat who happens to be a woman it just can't be because it's valid criticism. It has to be because anyone who would ever oppose a woman has to be sexist! It's such a b.s. way to shut down criticism and the sad thing is that other than President Trump it seems to work every time.

Though I think this interview in the Hollywood Reporter was to promote her special on Hulu, but I also think that the entire thing is a setup in order to position Hillary Clinton to be the candidate. If Warren doesn't win and the Democrats have a brokered convention, I could see Clinton swooping in to take the candidacy. Such a thing would probably destroy the Democratic Party but I have always thought Clinton was selfish enough to do such a thing. After all, it was her turn in 2016, so why wouldn't she be arrogant enough to think it's her turn in 2020?

Thousands of gun rights supporters show up in Virginia for a peaceful rally against Governor Northam's new laws.

Gun rights supporters at the event in Richmond, Virginia. ABC News/Reuters. 

Thousands of gun rights supporters showed up in Richmond Virginia today to protest new gun control laws put forth by Governor Northam and the Democratic Party. ABC News/GMA. There was no violence and almost no arrests at the event, despite claims from Northam that violence was likely due to threats from "white supremacists". Around 22,000 people showed up according to State Police, with 6,000 entering the capital unarmed with the rest staying on the streets, many with weapons. The rally has been a tradition since 2003 but took on special urgency after the Democrats took control of the Virginia state house and immediately introduced hated "assault weapon" bans and "red flag" laws, that take guns from people without due process. The only arrest was for a 21 year old woman who refused to take off a mask, which is illegal in Virginia.

My Comment:

I watched a bit of this event this morning and I have to say that it looked like a major success. People were calm, collected and determined to exercise their 1st and 2nd amendment rights and they did so without incident. The crowd was fairly diverse and peaceful and it looks like it would have been a special event to attend in person. Makes me wish I could have gone despite living nowhere near Virginia. 

Once again, the people that said something was clearly going to happen were wrong again. Just like they were wrong about World War III breaking out due to Iran, they were wrong about Civil War 2: Electric Boogalo breaking out in Virginia. 

I admit that even I was a bit worried that something bad would happen. I did not trust Governor Northam's actions and I still believe that he was doing whatever possible to make sure that blood was shed. However, despite actions like banning guns from the capital grounds, fencing off a "free speech area" and ensuring there were limited exits, nothing happened. 

Why? Part of it is the shear deterrence factor of having thousands of armed people in the same place. Anyone that tried to shoot this even up or picked a fight with someone would have been ventilated very quickly, not only by the police, but by armed civilians as well. People tend to underestimate how effective armed men are at keeping the peace and also forget that the violence in Charlottesville happened after the armed militias pulled out. 

Another part of it was the lack of an antagonist. Most gun owners and police officers have a level of respect for each other, while conservatives in general aren't anti-cop. Though there is certainly some level of animosity for police in the gun rights community, especially on the libertarian fringe, the two groups mostly get along, which makes sense as many cops are gun hobbyists as well. 

Though many people were sure that Antifa was going to show up and cause trouble, as far as I am aware they did not. Indeed, Antifa was experiencing some obvious discord and cognitive dissonance with the whole event. Antifa is surprisingly pro-gun and some people talked of joining the gun rights supporters against Governor Northam. Plus they, along with most of the far left, hate Northam because of his obvious and odious racism due to his blackface/KKK scandal. They also only seem to cause trouble when they both have the support of local officals and outnumber or otherwise outmatch their opponents. Neither of those things looked to be true today in Virginia. 

I do think the hand wringing and hysteria about potential violence probably reduced the numbers of people that showed up. Though it was cold out today, I think more people would have showed up if they weren't afraid of violence happening. Many of the gun rights websites I visited had many hysterical people saying that an obvious false flag was going to happen and that hundreds of people would die. 

They were practically begging for people to stay home, saying that a shootout would hurt the gun rights community more than having few people show up at a rally. I think a few of these people were genuine as there was a real fear, due in no small part to Governor Northam, that violence was going to happen. Hell, even I would not have been surprised if violence would have happened. But I think a lot of these people were likely anti-gun shills trying to torpedo the event. The Democrats and their allies had a vested interest in this event being a failure and were lying to us 

In the end though, the doomsayers and chicken littles were wrong yet again. The gun rights community had a successful event with no violence that sent a clear message to the Government of Virginia, which was "we will not comply" with new gun laws. Nobody got shot and it looks like nobody even threw a punch. It was a good day, not only for the gun rights movement but for democracy in general. 

So what happens next? I think that Virginia's government will likely pass some of these stupid laws but they won't be worth the paper they will be printed on. Most of the state has already rejected these laws and will not enforce them. And I am guessing the Democrats will be too cowardly to push the issue if they do pass them as they know doing so would be an absolute disaster. 

Legal challenges will be the next effort as some of these laws are clearly unconstitutional. The recent Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, might end up being an expansive judgement that could render a few of these laws illegal on their face. And even if that doesn't happen I fully expect all of these laws to be challenged in court. 

Furthermore I expect a recall election for Governor Northam. Though the Democrats are trying to prevent that with new legislation, I expect the next big fight to be against him. He's proven incapable of listening to his constituents and he needs to go and go soon. My sincere hope is that the people of Virginia throw him out of office as soon as possible. 

Finally, I think that this movement has energized the right in Virginia in such a way that it could have an impact in the 2020 election. Virginia went for Clinton in 2016 but that was due to a lot of Virginia conservatives staying home, along with the 2019 election that lead to this mess in the first place. I think a lot of the people that stayed home in those elections realized the cost of doing so and may flip the state red in 2020 for President Trump.  

Illegal border crossings plummet due to new US immigration policies.

The US Border Patrol  patrolling the border with Mexico. US Border Patrol. 

Illegal border crossing plummet due to new US immigration policies which force asylum seekers to wait in Mexico. Fox News/AP. In May the Border Patrol's Yuma sector had 14,000 arrests but that had fallen to 800 and stayed steady afterwards. Illegal immigrants cited the fact that they would not released in America and would have to stay in Mexico. 55,000 illegals were returned to Mexico to wait for asylum since the policy was enacted. The policy has been challenged in court but there is no indication if it will survive. 

My Comment:

Though this story was covered by the AP and appeared on Fox News and the Washington Post, this story is not getting much in the way of media coverage. This is obviously a big win for the Trump administration, so it's not surprising that it's not getting a whole lot of attention. 

I do think that it shows that the illegal immigrants were never asylum seekers in the first place. If they were, they would be willing to go through the process in Mexico for the chance to get into the United States legally. Once the chance to disappear across the border was removed, the motivation for economic migrants, which almost all of these people are, evaporated.  

Of course, activist judges and lawyers are trying to screw everything up. They will attempt to overturn this policy on whatever twisted interpretation of the constitution they can. However, there is no guarantee that they will succeed in their efforts as President Trump and the Senate has been very busy confirming judicial candidates.  

I always thought the old policy was insane. You can't trust people to just show up to a hearing, especially when they could be deported. Plus they did not face much in the way of consequences for not showing up. Closing the loophole has helped reduce the migrant wave that was overwhelming the United States. It's still a major problem but it's not a total crisis anymore. 

The problem is that border crossers are only a minority of illegal immigrants. A large number of them are either people who have overstayed their visas or crossed the border a long time ago. Stopping the flow of migrants from Central America is certainly a positive especially considering how dangerous the border crossing is, but it's not the end of the problem. 

Speaking of danger, I don't buy that Mexico is too dangerous for these migrants. Though parts of Mexico are a war zone, the entire country is not one. There are plenty of safe places in Mexico so the idea that these people are in danger isn't really accurate. It's certainly safer to be in Mexico than it is to cross the border being escorted by human traffickers. 

80 soldiers dead in missile attack in Yemen.

Yemeni soldiers near an impact crater. BBC/Getty. 

A missile attack in Yemen has killed at least 80 soldiers. BBC. Dozens more were wounded in the strike, which was likely launched by the Iranian backed Houthi rebels. The attack hit a mosque while soldiers were worshiping and the death toll is expected to rise. The Houthi rebels are surprisingly well equipped and have access to heavy weapons, including ballistic missiles. The conflict in Yemen has been seen as a proxy fight between Iran and the gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia. 

My Comment:

Another day another attack in Yemen. This story is largely notable due to the large number of casualties the Yemeni troops suffered. At least 80 dead people is going to be a story regardless of the circumstances. Even though the world is largely ignoring the Yemen conflict it's hard to ignore that many bodies. 

From what it sounds like the Houthis got a "lucky" hit on a group of Yemeni soldiers. They were all gathered in a Mosque and the missile(s) managed to hit them dead on. Given the circumstances it is not at all surprising that the casualties are in the triple digits. 

It's unclear what kind of missiles the Houthis were using. I do know that the Houthis have access to Iranian Burkan-2H missiles, which are part of the Scud missile family. These weapons are no joke and can cause a very large amount of damage, though accuracy is a major concern. I think it these weapons were used than it was just bad luck that they managed to hit a mosque. 

As for Yemen itself, the war there rages on, largely unnoticed by the rest of the world. It's a major mess there with various factions fighting each other and both Iran and Saudi Arabia backing different sides of the conflict. The war shows no sings of ending anytime soon either. 

There is some positive news though. It seems as though both al-Qaeda and ISIS have largely been defeated in Yemen. I know in the past al-Qaeda's Yemeni affiliate controlled quite a bit of territory there and used the country to launch attacks on Europe, most notably the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Both terror groups are a lot less prominent now. Both groups still control some territory there but they don't seem to be in a position to attack anywhere else. 

Protesters target French President Emmanuel Macron while he watches a play.

French President Emmanuel Macron.

Protesters targeted French President Emmanuel Macron while he was watching a play in Paris. Reuters. The President was there with his wife on a date watching the play La Mouche. A journalist, who was briefly detained afterwards, mentioned that Macron was there and protesters showed up and attempted to enter the theater. Macron has regularly spawned protest movements against various policies he and his government have launched, most notably the Gilets Jaunes, Yellow Vests, which originally protested changes in gas taxes. The latest round of protests is about Macron's plan to reform France's retirement system. 

My Comment:

Just a quick post to remind everyone that there are big protests going on in France. Though the intensity has died down since last year, the frequency is still steady and Macron keeps finding new ways to make everyone upset. 

The latest wave of protests has been about changing the retirement system, and that is pretty much always guaranteed to cause chaos. People don't want to worry about their old age years. They want to be able to retire safely and not have to worry about money in their old age. The younger generations also want their parents to be provided for. Threatening to take that away or even change the circumstances is a dumb move as it will always anger people, even if those changes are necessary. Without being an expert on France's domestic policy, I can't say if it's necessary or not but I do know that even if it is it was never going to be popular. 

I don't think President Macron was in any real danger here. French protests are often spirited and destructive but they are rarely violent and Macron was of course protected by police and his bodyguards. Even if the protesters had gotten into the play, Macron would have been swiftly taken out of there and nothing much would have happened to him other than a ruined evening. 

I do have to say that the entire event shows how out of touch President Macron is. Going to a play is a pretty snooty upper class thing to do. Most working class people either can't afford it or aren't interested in it (though the 2nd option may be less true in France), so it's not like Macron was going to the movies or something else relatable. 

It just screams upper class to me and I have always said that the unrest in France was primarily about class. The proposals that Macron makes are in the interests of the elite and upper classes in France and come at the expense of everyone else. This incident was a perfect example but even the Gilets Jaunes was about a gas tax that would have helped fight climate change, always an example of the upper classes virtue signalling at the expense of everyone else. 

However, President Macron has proven himself to be very resilient. He survived the worst days of the Gilets Jaunes movement and continues to serve despite low approval ratings. The next French Presidential election does not happen until April 2022 and I would be shocked if he isn't in office at that point. He probably won't win another term but I also don't think he would ever resign... 

Mixed bag for gun rights in Wisconsin as one community approves 2nd Amendment sanctuary while another comes up one vote short

The Brown County board. Green Bay Press Gazette/USA Today.

A 2nd Amendment sanctuary measure failed in Wisconsin's Brown County by one vote. Green Bay Press Gazette. Tensions were high in the meeting as verbal arguments broke out during the 4 hour hearing. Supporters said the measure would send a clear message to Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers who has expressed interest in Red Flag laws, however opponents argued that the measure would do nothing. Opponents also said that the board lacked the authority to not follow any laws passed by the state. Other efforts to put the measure out as a referendum also failed. 

However, another community in Wisconsin has approved a 2nd Amendment sanctuary measure. Wausau Daily Herald. The City of Merrill, a small city in Northern Wisconsin, approved the measure on a 6-2 vote. The measure said that local citizens disagree support the right to keep and bear arms and are benefiting from shootings sports. With the resolution passing, Merrill joins Florence County, also in Northern Wisconsin, in being Wisconsin 2nd Amendment sanctuaries.  

My Comment:

I'm furious with Brown County right now. I would have attended this meeting but my work schedule would not allow it. If I had I would have let my elected officials have a piece of my mind. I had thought about e-mailing my local representative but I didn't trust myself to not say something stupid. 

To lose this vote by one vote is heartbreaking. The two officials in my city voted against this measure and one of them is a lame duck guy that will be out in 2020. I don't know if there was anything I or the local gun rights community could have done to prevent this but it still is a bitter pill to swallow. I had thought this measure would have passed easily but I guess not. 

However, I do have to say that I am glad that Merrill did the right thing. I did think it was funny that the Council president there was outvoted pretty emphatically. I've never been the Merrill myself but if I ever find myself in the area I might spend some of my hard earned money there just because of this vote. I'm very proud of my Northern Wisconsin brothers that are fighting the good fight here, and I just wish that my community could have gotten with the program. 

Still, I do think that the measures here in Wisconsin are mostly symbolic in nature. Governor Tony Evers is a threat but he doesn't have the support in the legislature to pass any gun control laws. Wisconsin has some of the best gun laws in the Midwest (and even the nation) and it is good to see people working to make sure that remains the case as all it would take is one bad election, like the 2018 midterms were, for that to change. 

And I also think that there is a measure of solidarity here with other 2nd Amendment communities. Though our rights are reasonably save here in Wisconsin, that is not the case in other states and communities across the nation. As you can see from the below map, there are a lot of communities that are standing up to these awful laws. Just because Wisconsin has it easy does not mean that we shouldn't be joining the people in other states that aren't so lucky in sending a clear message to the people that would have us disarmed and helpless. 

Wikipedia user Terrorist69

The question for the people in Brown County is what do we do now? I don't think this fight is over and with one of the no-votes retiring this year it's very possible that we could flip this vote if we get someone better in there. Plus there are always petitions and other actions that can help convince people to do the right thing. 

Virginia Governor declares emergency banning guns near the capitol in advance of a gun rights rally.

My AR-15. 

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has declared an emergency and banned carrying weapons near the capitol in advance of a gun rights rally. The Hill. Northam said, without providing evidence, that white supremacist groups and militias were threatening violence, comparing it to the lead up to the Charlottesville rally. The declaration comes after Virginia banned guns in the capitol for the first time just this week. Thousands of gun rights supporters are expected to show up to the rally on Monday to protest new gun laws. The pressure these gun rights groups have put on the governor and the Democrats has already led to the tabling of the AR confiscation/ban but other laws are still on the docket, including the much hated "red flag" laws. 

My Comment:

I'm not from Virginia but if I was going to this rally, I would not be giving up my firearms. And not just because I think this order is unconstitutional. Before, I would have argued that nothing is going to happen here and that the Democrats would eventually back down when they saw how hated their gun laws are.

But now? I think there is a chance things might kick off. Why? Because this reminds me of the lead up to the Charlottesville rally. In that case the government did everything they possibly could to incite violence by forcing the right wing and left wing protesters together and it ended up with one of the protesters dead and two dead cops from a helicopter crash. 

I don't believe for a second that this is about threats from "white supremacists". It's about disarming people so that if something does go down they can't fight back. I wouldn't be surprised if antifa or some other armed leftist group show up to this rally and attack gun rights supporters, and if they comply with this order they will be defenseless. 

I also don't buy that Northam actually has any evidence that there is an active threat. Sure, a lot of people are saying that the rally could be the thing that kicks off the 2nd American Civil war but that's because they expect Northam to go full Assad and attack protesters. There is always the typical rhetoric on the right about revolution but I don't think Northam has any evidence of an active plot. There are always going to be jackasses on social media and image boards that are going to say something stupid and 99.99% of the time those people are just trolls. 

And I also think this order if unenforceable. Thousands of people are going to be at this event and now most of them will be carrying handguns concealed. Unless the police are going to try and search everyone and anyone they won't be able to do a damn thing. Plus if people bring rifles the cops won't be able to disarm people without risking a firefight erupting. 

The entire situation reminds me of the Bundy Ranch standoff. In that case hundreds of people showed up to a protest armed to the teeth. Nobody died but the government was unable to enforce the restrictions on civil rights they wanted to because they were terrified of a confrontation. A few people got arrested and convicted for pointing guns at people, but that was that. There were no major consequences for the vast majority of people that attended that protest and the government backed down in the end. 

The same thing will happen here. If people show up armed the cops won't do anything because they won't be able to without potential violence happening. They also know that if they do send in cops to disarm people and people get hurt it's going to be very bad optics and will cause blowback the likes of which we haven't seen in this country in a very long time. 

I know some people are arguing that the rally isn't necessary as the courts will likely overturn the laws and the most hated one, the AR confiscation, has been tabled. I disagree. This isn't about any future court cases it's about showing the Virginia Democrats that their actions are unacceptable and that they have crossed a red line. To back down now, when it's clear pressure is working, is just dumb. 

Plus, I think that the red flag laws are a bigger threat anyways. I know that most gun rights supporters see these laws as ripe for abuse and that they will result in the deaths of a lot of innocent citizens and police. If the law passes I fully expect them to be used against the people that oppose Ralph Northam and the Democrats. 

I still think that it's more likely that nothing big will happen at this rally. Gun rights supporters have always been remarkably well behaved despite the active threat against their rights and their lives that the gun control movement represents. And political violence in general is extremely rare in America. 

But it's still frustrating that Northam and the Democrats are behaving this way. From my view here in Wisconsin it's like they are doing everything possible to cause violence and disorder. All they would have to do is respect the 2nd amendment and drop these insane laws and then everyone would be happy, but they seem determined to do everything in their power to force a confrontation. 

Editor's Note: Democratic Debate.

As a reminder, I will be live tweeting the Democratic Debate tonight starting at 8:00pm central time. You can follow along on Twitter or Gab as I will be cross posting both places. I talked about who is participating in the debate and other various thoughts here.

Since I posted that I do have to say that there might be some interesting moments tonight if only the useless CNN moderators would ask the right questions.  Bernie Sanders might be in the crosshairs as he has a minor scandal with Elizabeth Warren about him supposedly saying a woman can't win the presidency. He also has a more major one that I am sure will be ignored where one of his staffers called for violence.

It will be interesting what CNN does as they are both extremely biased against Project Veritas, which broke the story, and Bernie Sanders, who isn't part of the Democratic Party except when he runs for President.

Either way, the potential for fireworks between the candidates might make this debate a bit more interesting than other more recent debates. I'm going on Twitter now and might post a few things about other pressing issues and will follow the debate as it happens.

Cory Booker drops out of Presidential race.

Corey Booker. Politico/AP

Senator Cory Booker has dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race and will now focus on being reelected in the Senate. Politico. Booker failed to qualify for the most recent debate happening tomorrow. He also cited the impeachment trial possibly keeping him too busy to campaign. Booker never made much of an impact on the polls with him gathering five percent in his best showing. He also had consistent fundraising problems. President Trump mocked Booker as he left the race.

Really Big Breaking News (Kidding): Booker, who was in zero polling territory, just dropped out of the Democrat Presidential Primary Race. Now I can rest easy tonight. I was sooo concerned that I would someday have to go head to head with him!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2020

My Comment:
Some nice trolling from our President there. But I think he's got a point, Booker was never a credible candidate for President. He never got much in the way of polling and was always lagging far behind the other candidates in terms of funding. It's not surprising that his campaign ended in failure but it is surprising that it took this long for him to drop out.

Booker always seemed like an "also ran" candidate. He never really had much in the way of a consistent message that would make him stand out from the pack. Indeed, the only policy proposal I remember from him was his crazed gun control plan that quickly fell from the headlines after Robert France "Beto" O'Rourke stole the issue from him and turned it up to eleven.

I think Booker was relying on his race to try and win. He was one of the only black candidates running but I don't think he realized that people won't just vote for you because of your race. Yes it did help Barack Obama but Obama at least was charismatic and had a pretty clear message for everyone. Cory Booker was not charismatic and did not really have that clear of a message.

This election cycle seems to disprove the idea that the Democrats will blindly vote for someone based on race. Booker and Kamala Harris based much of their campaigns on the fact that they were minorities but it didn't do anything for either of them. And tomorrow's debate will have zero non-white candidates, despite the field still being fairly diverse. I think this proves that even in the Democratic Party that race isn't a trump card (no pun intended) over more traditional assets like popular ideas or name recognition. I also don't think Democrats are buying the idea that they are racist just because they no longer have any non-whites in the Debates. It's a media talking point yes, but I don't think the average person on the street cares.

Booker did do ok at the debates though, so it is somewhat surprising that he didn't see a spike in his poling. Part of that is the huge number of candidates that there were this year, it's hard to stand out when there are 20 candidates running. I also think that unless you are dominating the headlines during the debates like President Trump did in the 2016 cycle, they are that important.

Booker will now focus on winning his Senate seat back. Though New Jersey is considered a safe state for Democrats he is facing a primary challenge. I don't think he will lose either race but the presidential race may have been a distraction for him. I think there is an outside chance of Booker losing his seat, either to another Democrat or to his eventual Republican challenger.