Kyle Rittenhouse to sue Joe Biden for falsely claiming he was a White Supremacist.

 

Kyle Rittenhouse. Social media photo.

Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17 year old who shot three people during the Kenosha Riot, is suing the Joe Biden campaign for falsely claiming he was a White Supremacist. Fox News. Joe Biden posted a video on his Twitter account that implied that Rittenhouse was a racist, though no evidence of him being racist has been released. Even the Anti-Defimnation League said they had examined Rittenhouse's accounts and found no evidence of racism. Rittenhouse and his defense team has claimed self-defense for the shooting that left two people dead and another injured. Rittenhouse's lawyer, Lin Wood, has said he is preparing a lawsuit and demanding a retraction from the Biden campaign. 

There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020

My Comment:

This is a big deal as Lin Wood, Rittenhouse's lawyer, was the one who represented Kyle Rittenhouse and successfully won cases against the Washington Post and CNN. He has a track record of winning cases like this. If anyone can get a victory in court against the Biden campaign it's Lin Wood and his group. 

Does he have a case in this incident? I think there might be one. The video that Biden post certainly implied that Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist. Putting his photo with a bunch of people that actually are racists certainly implies that Rittenhouse is one as well. And I think it counts as malice as well as if even the ADL says that Rittenhouse isn't a racist then it isn't really arguable that they were mistaken about this.

That being said, defamation cases are extremely hard to win in the United States. Our standards are very high and that can be proven by the horrible behavior of the media. Rittenhouse is helped by the fact that not only is he a minor, he's also facing a criminal case and it's pretty clear that Biden's video could hurt his chances in court. It's not an open and shut case but it is a case and I am guessing that Biden will likely settle just to avoid the embarrassment. 

Still, this case was something that was totally avoidable. They had enough leftover footage from Charlottesville to make their point (which isn't valid anyways) and they had no reason to lie about this. But given how many lies Biden told last night I am not surprised that he did this as well. To the Democrats these days anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, even if there is zero evidence of actual racism. 

My reaction to the 1st Presidential Debate.

 

President Trump and former Vice President Biden. Public Domain. 

As you are most certainly aware the 1st presidential debate happened last night. I watched and live tweeted the entire thing. Or at least attempted to, I had technical issues with all three sites I was using to post, Twitter, Gab and Parler. That means a lot of what I wanted to say during the debate I was unable to do so because I couldn't get the websites to reliably post. 

Having watched the debate I have to say it was a doozy. It was probably the most aggressive and angry debate I have ever seen and it mostly consisted of the three men present, Donald Trump, Joe Biden and moderator Chris Wallace yelling at each other. The media class was furious and more then a few people described the debate as an absolute mess. I don't know if I would call it the "worst" debate I've seen, but I do think it was one of the least informative.  

That being said, I think that the blame lies on Chris Wallace. He failed utterly at controlling this debate and, even worse, showed almost complete bias against President Trump. Yes, President Trump was interrupting Joe Biden, but Biden did the same thing and Wallace interrupted Trump just as much. When it was clear that things were out of control Wallace just whined about it and was not effective in allowing candidates to speak their 2 minutes without interruption. 

That's not how you moderate a debate. You either let the candidates go or you reign them in. Wallace tried to split the middle and it was a disaster. This entire election cycle has had a problem with people talking over each other, making the debate harder to follow, but when the moderator jumps in too? It's even worse! Changes might be necessary for the next debates, but let's not pretend that Wallace didn't totally fail as a moderator. In the next debates they should either ditch moderators entirely or they should actually shut down candidates if they talk out of turn (assuming that we could trust them to do it fairly which they won't).

President Trump was extremely aggressive in this debate in a way I don't think we have seen before. He was rough during the 2016 primary debates and the debates against Hillary Clinton but compared to this debate those debates were child's play. Trump pressured Joe Biden all night and it's clear that he really rattled both Biden and Chris Wallace. Indeed, Wallace's voice cracked a couple of times and I thought he was near tears. 

But it's also important to note that Joe Biden too was extremely aggressive and rude. He even declined to childish name calling and whining when Trump was attacking him. Biden called Trump every name in the book, from "clown" to "racist" to "the worst President America ever had". It's very clear that Trump got to him and that he lost his cool. 

The good news for Biden is that the expectations of him were so low that even his mediocre debate performance was a victory for him. Compared to his performances in the primary debates and even way back into the 2012 VP debate with Paul Ryan, Biden did not do well. Indeed, Hillary Clinton did much better then Biden during her first debate with Donald Trump then Biden did in this one. 

Biden was confused, stumbling on his words and had several incidents where he couldn't come up with an answer fast enough and had to get bailed out by Chris Wallace (or by President Trump interrupting him). By the last 30 minutes of the debate I could tell that he was starting to fade and fade badly. It's very clear that Biden isn't the same man as he once was and that he has lost a major step when it comes to his mental state. He's senile and it's pretty obvious. 

That being said, all Biden had to do was not collapse entirely or drop a major gaffe and I think that he did so. The concerns about Biden being totally senile are going to be lessoned after this debate. I don't think he did a good job at all, but I do think that he at least proved that he can get through a 90 minute debate without passing out or peeing his pants. People were literally expecting him to do something like that and I think the debate shows that whatever Biden's problems are mentally he's at least still somewhat there. 

As for President Trump, I think he made some mistakes in this debate. His aggressive style clearly rattled Joe Biden, but I thought he should have backed off during the 2nd half of the debate. Had he done so Biden probably would have put his foot in his mouth at some point but Trump was so aggressive with his interruptions that he didn't give Biden a chance to hang himself. "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" is famous for a reason but Trump did so last night. 

He also made some baffling choices in the race section. Though the media is blowing out of proportion his response when Chris Wallace asked him to denounce White Nationalists, he clearly did, he could have handled it better. Instead of saying "sure, name the group" he should have said something like "I totally disavow them, and I'm disgusted you would even ask that". He has done this in the past but I'm not sure why he didn't come out more forcibly then he did. Not doing so is obviously backfiring on him as the media is having a field day with it, even though they are cutting out the fact that he obviously did disavow them. 

I also kind of think that Wallace and Biden trapped Trump with the Proud Boys remark. As a reminder, the Proud Boys are not White Supremacists, their current leader is a Cuban-American with very dark skin. They are a right wing group with some pretty crazy beliefs and are only notable for beating up Antifa. Trump told them to stand back and stand by, which the media is lying about, saying he didn't denounce them. They cut out what he said before, where he did condemn white supremacists, which is what I think Wallace and Biden were planning all along. Had he been a bit more forceful on denouncing the Proud Boys (which I think is probably justified since despite not being White Supremacists, they are violent assholes) he wouldn't be getting attacked in the media quite so much. 

I also think that Trump left some things hang in the air that he absolutely should not have done. When accused of the old, debunked, "fine people hoax" he didn't fight back even though it was the worst lie that was told that night. He also made a mistake in letting the debate focus on his taxes instead of dismissing the story immediately. 

Biden too made some pretty big mistakes. The one lie that I know that President Trump made, that he called black people superpredators, was left unchallenged. Biden has said some very questionable and terrible things about black people, but that's not his quote, it's Hillary Clinton's. But since Biden didn't push back on that, it's going to be something he's known for now as well. Either Biden didn't want to throw Clinton under the bus or he felt guilty about the other racial things he has said and wanted to move on. Either way, for a guy that spent the entire night saying Trump was lying about everything he didn't call out the actual lie. 

Joe Biden also likely alienated a lot of his left wing voters last night. He was bullied into denouncing a lot of things the far left likes. He praised cops, he called for law and order and he denounced the Green New Deal, which his running mate Kamala Harris co-sponsored in the Senate. How much damage this will do is unknown, as the far-left already hated Biden and nobody in that part of the party was going to vote for Biden, just against Trump, but it still might convince a few of the far-left to stay home. 

The debate itself was almost devoid of content in terms of actual issues. The personal attacks were so out  of control that nobody learned much in the way of details over the candidates plans. It was mostly a rehashing of the various scandals, real and imagined, that both candidates have had over the years. 

Who do I think won? I think it has to be President Trump. I think there was a method to his madness here. On the surface he came off like a total asshole. However, that's already baked into the cake with President Trump, so I doubt it hurt him too much. A few squishy "muh decorum" types might be turned off by him, but his fans probably loved seeing him tearing into Joe Biden. Indeed, though I thought the debate was a disaster it was at least fun watching Biden and Wallace become so exasperated. 

But I think he did a ton of damage to Joe Biden last night. He may have damaged himself a bit in the process but I think his biggest problem was that he was seen as a jerk while Joe Biden was seen as a nice guy. I don't think anyone sees Biden as a nice guy after last night. He stooped to Trump's level and the one common thought I have heard from undecideds and independents after the debate is "these guys are both idiots, how can I vote for either?" Trump neutralized the threat of people who want to vote for a more normal, less cantankerous man for President as those people will likely now stay home or at least vote 3rd party. 

And I think focusing on Biden's scandals probably helped as well. Everyone is familiar with Trump's issues (and often how debunked they are) but how many people knew that Democrats were thinking about stacking the Supreme Court? How many people knew that Biden's son was knee deep in corruption? How many are questioning why did Joe Biden call Antifa, the group that has been rioting, looting and burning their way across the United States, an "ideology, not a group"?  These are things that I don't think the average low-information voter had any idea about before now. 

Biden is also not going to win any voters with the slimy and evasive way he answered all of his questions. He absolutely refused to say if he would stack the court or not, which makes him look dishonest. And his answers for any of this scandals? "That's debunked" without actually saying why something is supposedly debunked. Such a weak defense is no defense at all, and given how serious the accusations were against Hunter Biden, he should have had something better planned. 

That being said, if it was a win for President Trump, it was an ugly one. He could have handled a lot of it better then he actually did. I also think that the anger he had here was a lot more real. This wasn't the more playful and funny candidate we had in 2016. I think he is right to be pissed off considering what the Democrats and the Deep State has done to him, but if I had any advice for Trump in his remaining debates it would be this. Bring the joy and humor back. 2016 Trump was hilarious and silly, and that's not what we saw last night. He's obviously still capable of this since I've seen his recent rallies, but he didn't make that push last night and I think it was a mistake. I didn't laugh once during the debate last night and that's a huge issue for a candidate that is known for his humor.

And if I had advice for Biden, it would be this. The way to beat President Trump is to not try to out Trump him. Had Biden not been a snarky asshole all night he would have gotten more sympathy. Had he actually tried to sell his plans he might have actually made a little progress, but he didn't. 

Will the debate have an effect on the election? Maybe. We really didn't learn anything new last night and historically the 1st debate is the least meaningful. After all, Mitt Romney destroyed Barack Obama in their first debate and Clinton either tied or beat Trump in the first debate in 2016. Romney lost in 2012 and Clinton did in 2016, so even if this was a rough debate for President Trump it doesn't mean that he will lose. 

If it has any effect at all though I think it will be on Joe Biden. Though the media is declaring him the winner, they aren't doing it with confidence. I think they are rattled because Biden was so clearly rattled. He's not going to be seen as the senile nice old man that he was prior to the debate, he's going to be seen as left wing Trump, but without Trump's rabid fan base. The election still has a long way to go but I do think that Biden is basically finished now.

As for me I am now looking forward to what should be the most important VP debate in modern history, the debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris. That debate will happen a week from today and I plan to live tweet it as well. I expect a massively different debate considering Mike Pence is Trump's foil and Harris is so completely unlikable. Pence will likely wipe the floor with Harris who did not do well in the primary debates. It should be a good time and I am looking forward to it. 

President Trump receives third Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

 

President Donald Trump. The Hill/Getty. 

President Donald Trump has received a third Nobel Peace Prize nomination. The Hill. Four Australian law professors have nominated him for his "Trump Doctrine" which sought to stop endless American wars and not get into new ones. The professors also praised the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain. President Trump has, so far, broken a streak of 39 years of US presidents starting new wars. Nobel Peace Prizes can be nominated by members of government and academia. Joe Biden has also been nominated for the prize as well by a member of British Parliament. 

My Comment:

Just a quick note that President Trump has received yet another Nobel Peace Prize nomination. It will be his third this year. As a reminder Trump also was nominated for his effort to bring peace to the Middle East and was also nominated for his success in bringing peace between Kosovo and Serbia. Three nominations is pretty good. 

Does President Trump have a chance of winning though? No chance. The Nobel Peace Prize is not really awarded for people that actually advance the cause of peace. If it was, Barack Obama wouldn't have won his. To be fair, he won that one before he had a record of starting wars and drone striking anyone and everyone. 

It's clear that Obama didn't deserve his and I'd argue strongly that Trump does deserve one. But it's not about deserve, it's about who is popular among the international community. Obama was beloved despite his obvious flaws while Trump is hated despite his strong case for peace. In a fair world Trump would have won when he was nominated when he tried to negotiate a lasting peace with North Korea. It didn't work out in the end but it was an extraordinary effort.  

If North Korea didn't work out, it's clear that the Middle East deal and the Serbia/Kosovo deal did work out. These successes served the cause for peace and President Trump is largely responsible for it. He deserves credit for it as I don't think a President Clinton would have even tried. Plus we'd be at war with Syria, Iran, North Korea and Russia. 

But again, Trump's not going to win anything. Even an organization founded on peace won't award a person who is fighting for their cause because they don't like him. That's just kinda sad in the end. Imagine hating someone so much that you fight against the own cause you are supposed to be fighting for? 

Viral video shows Russian S-400 missile hitting its own launcher.

 

A Russian S-400 launcher. Eurasian Times.

A viral video shows a Russian S-400 anti-air missile failing and hitting its own launcher. Eurasian Times. The video comes from Russia's Kavkaz 2020 exercise in Russia's southern military district. The video shows the launcher firing two missiles, the first of which works normally. The second missile did not, as its boost phase did not ignite, causing the missile to fall out of the air and hit its own launcher. Turkey, which has purchased several of the S-400 launchers, has claimed that several of their missiles have been defective as well. 

 My Comment:

I know I am late on this story but in my defense I just saw this today (on War News Updates FYI). I thought the video was funny enough to share regardless of how out of date I am with it. And it's not like it isn't a valid news story, Russia's effort to sell the S-400 has been a major foreign policy story and has caused friction between America and Turkey as one example. 

I do have to say that the Russian's attitude to the malfunction was pretty hilarious. Instead of screaming with terror as the missile falls, they laugh about it. They probably weren't in that much danger where they were filming but still, it was a scary situation and the Russians just didn't care. 

This video will probably hurt the sales of the S-400. Having viral video out there where a missile fails to launch is not going to help things. And it can't even be blamed on anybody but the Russians since they were the ones operating it. If it had been the Turks, they could blame it on them not fully understanding the weapon. But with the Russians being the ones that fired it? No excuse. 

Is that fair? Probably not. Air to air missiles are complex technology and as such they are occasionally going to fail. It's literally rocket science to build, design and operate these missiles, and it's not always going to work out right. To judge a weapons system on one failure isn't fair. But that's life I guess. 

More damaging to the S-400 is the reports that Turkey has been having problems with the missiles as well. The Eurasian Times report cited complaints about this but I haven't really seen those reports myself so it may or may not be true. Still, it's very possible that the S-400 really is a lemon and other countries should consider that before they buy them. 

Debate information and live tweet reminder.

 

Moderator Chris Wallace. NPR/Getty.

As you may know the 1st Presidential Debate is on tomorrow. As usual, I plan to live tweet the event. If you would like to follow along you can do so on Twitter, Gab, or Parler. I usually have a lot of fun watching these things and it might be fun to follow along. 

As for the debate itself NPR has an article up, but I'll summarize here. The debate is going to be at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio and will begin at 8:00pm central and will end at 9:30, supposedly. The moderator is Fox News Journalist Chris Wallace, which isn't without controversy as he is widely seen as suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. He's probably going to be the most objective out of the moderators, but that is damning by faint praise. 

The debate will cover the following topics in 15 minute segments:

1.Trump's and Biden's records

2. Supreme Court

3. Coronavirus

4. Economy

5. Race and violence in U.S. cities

6. The integrity of the election

There are some obvious and huge things missing from that list of topics. Most notably there is no mention of foreign policy at all. There is also no mention of Joe Biden's various scandals (Ukraine, sexual assault, the creepy hair sniffing, the fact that he's going senile) or even the faux scandal of the day, the Trump tax returns. 

The common thought is that President Trump will wipe the floor with Joe Biden. That actually doesn't help him that much. Expectations for Joe Biden are so low that if he manages to even be semi-coherent he will seen to exceed them. I think people are half expecting that Biden will call the moderator the n-word, collapse and fall, or even start drooling. That's how far gone he is but I am guessing he will have enough drugs in his system that he will be able to make it through without a career ending gaffe or medial emergency. To be clear, I don't think he will win the debate, on performance or argument, but the people who expect this debate to put Biden away are probably going to be disappointed. 

As for President Trump, I'm confident he will do well. From what I understand Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani have been helping him practice. Plus he's been holding daily rallies so it's not like he's out of practice. What little I have seen of his most recent speaking has been fairly good. Expect him to go on the offense and not give Biden a chance to hit him on anything. 

There is still a chance the debate won't happen. Biden met with Governor Ralph Northam who has recently been diagnosed with Covid-19. I'm afraid that Biden will use that as an excuse to not participate in the debate. Doing so would probably end his campaign though, so I am guessing that Biden will try and make it through. 

Armenia and Azerbaijan declare martial law after skirmishes between the two countries leave several dead.

 

The Hill/Getty.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have both declared martial law after skirmishes between the two former Soviet republics have left several dead. The Hill. The deadliest clash since 2016 occurred in the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region in Azerbaijan, which is controlled by ethnic Armenians. Armenia says that 16 military troops were killed in airstrikes with 100 more wounded a two civilians dead as well.  Azerbaijan claims the airstrikes were in response to shelling that killed five people and they also claim that they have taken some villages from the Armenians in response. The conflict is likely due to religious tensions as Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh region are Christian while Azerbaijan. 

Clashes erupted between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the volatile Nagorno-Karabakh region, reigniting concern about instability in the South Caucasus, a corridor for pipelines transporting oil and gas to world markets https://t.co/tVxDtV3zZb pic.twitter.com/bmBh5EzLBZ

— Reuters (@Reuters) September 27, 2020

My Comment:

A fairly major news story that is getting buried over irrelevant American news. A possible war breaking out is a bigger potential story then the nonsense about President Trump's tax return. The violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan could spiral out of control quickly with both of them declaring martial law. 

The violence could effect the world economy. Azerbaijan is a major oil producer and the Nagorno-Karabakh region is how they transport their oil to Europe. Any major battles there could damage or disrupt the flow of oil which is bad for everyone. 

The violence seems to be due mostly to religion. Azerbaijan is a Muslim majority country and Armenia is majority Christian. Nagorno-Karabakh is also majority Christian and it makes sense that they would chafe under the rule of the Muslims in Azerbaijan. 

I am far from an expert in the region but it seems to me that this is another one of those totally avoidable situations that could have been handled better when the break-up of the Soviet Union broke up. Just like it never made any sense for the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine to remain in Ukraine, it makes little sense for the Christian parts of Azerbaijan to remain there as well. 

I am hoping that this conflict won't draw anyone else in. Russia is apparently taking a knee, calling for calm on both sides. But Turkey has said that they will back Azerbaijan if the situation devolves into war. I don't know if anyone else will join on the Armenian side but the fact that Turkey might get involved changes what should remain a minor conflict into a region war. 

That probably won't happen though. There have been skirmishes over Nagorno-Karabakh before, with 2016 being the most recent example. I am guessing that both sides will realize that war really isn't in their best interests and will back down after the tit-for-tat violence. Time will tell if I am right or not... 

Two injured in a terror attack in France with the motive being anger over the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

 

One of the victims of the attack being rescued. The Guardian/AFP.

Two people have been injured in a mass stabbing near the old offices of Charlie Hebdo, with the suspect confirming he was a radicalized Muslim who did it because he was offended. The Guardian. Charlie Hebdo was the magazine that published several cartoons that displayed Muhammad, which is forbidden by many interpretations of Islam. The offices of the magazine were attacked back in 2015, leaving 12 people dead. This attack occurred in the area of those officers but Charlie Hebdo has long since moved. The victims were two people sitting on a bench smoking before they were slashed by the attacker, who has been identified as an 18 year old Pakistani man who arrived in the country three years ago as an unaccompanied minor. The suspect has been arrested and charged with attempted murder as part of a terror group.

My Comment:

As always, I will post the cartoon whenever this subject may come up. The entire idea of these terror attacks is to intimidate people into not doing something and whenever that happens it's our duty to do it. I know most news media today are too cowardly to republish the cartoons but I don't care. I'm not Muslim, so I have no problem posting a picture of Muhammad. 

I actually just wrote about the Charlie Hebdo attacks earlier this month. The story is back in the news as some of the people that helped the attackers are currently on trial for their roles in the attack. Charlie Hebdo republished the cartoons and it seems that action is what inspired the attacker to commit his crime. 

That story and this one do not appear to be getting much coverage in international media. I missed the story entirely yesterday and it's not like I wasn't looking for things to write about. I ended up posting about President Trump's pitch to black voters, an important story of course, but while I was looking for a topic to post about I didn't find this one at all. 

Part of it is because it's hard not to consider this attack a failure. Only two people were injured and nobody was killed. I'm not sure why, we have seen mass stabbings with double digit kill counts before, but thankfully this wasn't one of them. And I have to point out the stupidity of attacking an area that no longer has much to do with Charlie Hebdo. Their offices have moved for obvious reasons, so essentially this attacker was targeting a random area. 

It's unclear if this attacker was helped by any larger terror group. A few other people were questioned and the suspect was charged with attempted murder as part of a terror group, but I doubt he actually had much in the way of help. The method and the foolish nature of the attack makes me think that this was a lone wolf attack and if ISIS or al-Qaeda had any role at all it was providing materials and training on the internet. These terror groups no longer seem capable of helping lone terrorists, let alone pulling off their own attacks, in Europe. 

As for Charlie Hebdo, I am hoping that this current attack does not change anything. I don't know why it would, the previous attack killed 12 people, including much of the staff of the magazine, and they still continued to publish. I don't agree with Charlie Hebdo's beliefs but I do believe in free speech and they have every right to publish whatever they want and it's not on them if a terrorist attacks them for it. 

President Trump makes pitch for black voters, announces 500 billion plan and will designated Antifa and KKK terror groups.

 

President Donald Trump.

President Trump is making a major pitch for black voters and has announced a $500 billion plan that would provide money for black businesses and will designate Anitfa and KKK as terror groups. Fox News. The plan would also make lynching a federal hate crime as well as designating Juneteenth a federal holiday. The plan would hope to create 500,000 new black owned businesses and would allow 3 million jobs for blacks. The would also be an effort to advance home ownership, help with financial literacy, and give school choice. 

My Comment:

Looks like President Trump is making a strong pitch for black voters. The things in this plan are mostly a checklist of things that black people want. By selling this as a GOP plan they are taking away a major Democrat talking point. 

Will this help him win the election? I think it's possible. I do think that the Democrats take black Americans for granted. However, they shouldn't. President Trump improved on Mitt Romeny and John McCain's numbers in 2016 and that was before he made this pitch. Historically Republicans have rarely passed 10% for black voters, but it may even be as high as 15% for President Trump. His goal isn't to bring the whole race over to the GOP but just enough votes to erase any losses President Trump has among other groups. It might even be enough for President Trump to win the popular vote if he can exceed the 15% I've seen as an upper bound.

I do think that a major investment in the black community could help things. It won't solve all the problems there but it would give people a chance to have a better life then they have now. I see this as an effort to expand the black middle class, which was hurt badly due to the policies of the Democratic Party. 

I'm not a fan of everything though. I don't think there is a need for a lynching law since the crime would already be covered by existing laws. Murdering someone because of their race is already a hate crime so I don't know what a lynching law would accomplish. But I also like how shamelessly President Trump stole the idea. I know that in the leadup to the Jussie Smollett disaster, Kamala Harris was trying to get a lynching law passed. Taking one of her signature issues and making it his own is a power move. 

I'm also wondering what the point of designating the KKK a terror group. I think it's one of those "both sides are bad things" to make labeling Antifa more palatable. It seems pointless though as the KKK is a shell of an organization that is mostly made up of feds looking for an arrest to make their career. They are mostly a joke, though I don't mind them being called terror group.

Labeling Antifa a terror group is a huge victory. Some might question why Antifa is getting labeled in an effort to help black people but it makes a lot of sense to me. Antifa rioted in black communities and have killed several black people. In addition to the deaths it caused massive damage to black owned businesses and greatly reduced the opportunities black people have. 

Two police officers shot in Louisville Kentucky during riots over the Breonna Taylor case

 

An officer stands guard in Kentucky. ABC News/Reuters.

Two police officers have been shot in Louisville Kentucky during riots over the Breonna Taylor case. ABC News. The riots began after a grand jury indicted one of the three men involved in the shooting of Breonna Taylor for wanton endangerment. The two officers were in stable condition and one was in surgery. A suspect is already in custody. The Breonna Taylor case gained national attention as it involved police executing a warrant. Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, opened fire on the officers and when officers returned fire they struck Taylor instead. Officer Brett Hankison was charged for the wanton endangerment of Taylor's neighbors as his rounds entered their apartment. The other two officers actions were ruled justified. Walker contends that the officers did not identify themselves as police and that's why he opened fire but police and witnesses contend that the officers did indeed identify themselves. 

LOUISVILLE - Massive Police and National Guard presence Brook/Broadway after an officer was injured after being shot at by Rioters pic.twitter.com/f5Hv9rgyD6

— FJ News Reporter (@FJNewsReporter) September 24, 2020

My Comment:

Even more violence committed by the rioters supporting Black Lives Matter and Antifa. And it sounds like more is going on. I have been listening to the scanner in Louisville and police have reported other shootings. The night is still early so more incidents could happen. 

The good news is that after the shooting happened it appears that police and the National Guard have broken up the riots. Without the cover of the larger group of protesters the bad actors don't have the cover they need to act. If more people try to shoot at the cops they will likely be shot back in return. 

There is evidence that this protest was organized. While it is true that everyone knew this was coming, Louisville declared an emergency earlier in the week, it's also true that there were people helping this along. Most notably a U-Haul truck full of signs was filmed and people successfully identified the person who rented it as a far-left activist. That doesn't mean the shooting was planned but it would not surprise me.  

As for the Breonna Taylor case itself, I have mixed feelings. In the past I was more sympathetic in that case then for most but as usual I had only heard the media's version of the events. From what I understand Taylor was actually fairly well involved in criminal activity and the claims that the incident was due to a no-knock warrant are disputed at best. Unlike most of the people Black Lives Matter protest over, she didn't deserve to die though. 

Should the officers have been charged? Without seeing the evidence of the case I am not sure. It sounds like Officer Hankison was reckless when he returned fire, but it also sounds like both Kenneth Walker and the other two officers have a good case for self defense. I think it's plausible that police did announce that they were police and I also think it's plausible that Walker never heard them. And Taylor's death? Just someone caught in the crossfire. I'm sure the grand jury had more information than I do so unless there is some other evidence of wrongdoing I'm fine with the outcome in this case. 

But it's clear that Black Lives Matter doesn't care that one of the officers was charged in this case or that Taylor's family was given millions of dollars. They also don't care that no-knock warrants aren't allowed in Kentucky anymore or that Senator Rand Paul tried to help pass a bill that would ban it nationally. All they want is violence and chaos. I am sure that even if all three officers involved in this case were unjustly charged with capital murder and summarily executed it still wouldn't be enough. As it was never about justice with these people, it's about hate.  

This level of violence is not sustainable. Sooner or later people are going to get tired of it and the normal people will start bringing violence to these rioters in return. Since these people are getting more and more bold it's only a matter of time before another Kenosha type situation happens. 

So what can stop these riots? Colder weather will probably help. People won't want to riot when it's -10 out. And once the election is over with I think a lot of the funding will dry up. People thought that the riots in the 2015-2016 era would continue throughout the Trump presidency but they stopped almost entirely after the inauguration. Regardless of who wins in November (and let's not kid ourselves, it's going to be President Trump) these riots will likely stop afterwards. 

I do hope that the gloves come off at that point though. Authorities know who these people are and who are funding them and it wouldn't be a big thing to round them all up. Though President Trump has gotten a little more aggressive with the rioters recently, if he wins he won't be tethered by the threat of elections anymore. My sincere hope is that he rounds up all of the leadership of these riots and fires everyone in the government who downplay the threat, like his spineless FBI director, Christopher Wray. 

Mitt Romney says he will support an effort to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, giving President Trump the 51 votes he needs.

 

Senator Mitt Romney. NPR/AP.

Mitt Romney says he will support an effort to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg giving President Trump the 51 votes he needs to put forth a candidate. NPR. Romney released a statement saying that he would "follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President's nominee" and would "vote based upon their qualifications." Two GOP senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, have already said that they will not support the effort to fill the seat before the election. Romney mentioned that historically Supreme Court vacancies were filled by a party when they control both the Presidency and the Senate, even if an election was looming. President Trump said he will announce his pick by Friday or Saturday. 

My Comment:

I was worried about Mitt Romney. He has suffered a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome since the 2016 primaries and he hasn't changed even though President Trump helped him win his seat in Utah. There was some fear that he would John McCain President Trump's nomination effort. 

That doesn't seem to be the case here. It looks like Romney is going to confirm whoever the nominee is. It is probably just politics, Romney knows that he will likely lose his seat in Utah if he pulls any stunts. Voters have a long memory and I doubt they would forgive him if he betrayed them like this. John McCain had the advantage of a looming death and no further elections when he voted down repealing Obamacare. As far as I am aware Romney doesn't have that advantage. 

Being the deciding vote might be an advantage for Romney. If he really wanted to pull a power move he could threaten to vote no if the right candidate isn't put forth. This would make him kingmaker and if he forces a vote on someone who isn't pro-Trump it could have major implications for the 2020 elections. Thankfully, I don't think Romney will pull this off for the same reasons he supports the candidate. He would be playing with fire if he didn't support the nominee or tried to force Trump's hands. 

That being said, if I was President Trump I'd probably be giving Romney a call to thank him. Though the two men have their differences patching things up might make this thing a bit smoother. And if he can't do it himself he should do it through intermediaries. Though I still think Romney is a snake a little politics might help things out here. 

As for any other defectors the only other ones appear to be Collins and Murkowski. I have always considered them Republicans in Name Only but I am guessing their real objection is their polling. I know Collins is up for reelection in what is supposed to be a blue state so the GOP might not object too much for them not supporting the effort. 

The only other questionable Senator was Cory Gardner who has already announced he will vote to confirm. Gardner is facing a tough election against former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper but I think he knows that not voting for a replacement is going to hurt him more then voting in favor of one. 

I do have to say that there is still a potential for weaseling out by Romney. He did say that he would vote based on qualifications which means he could end up betraying his base in the end. The good news that at that point it wouldn't matter. You only need 50 votes to confirm a justice and VP Mike Pence would have the tiebreaker. 

It seems pretty clear that there will be another conservative justice on the Supreme Court. I don't see anything that the Democrats can do to prevent it. They have floated impeachment but I can't think of anything that would help Donald Trump more then yet another phony impeachment on the eve of an election. They could threaten to riot, but again, they are already doing that. They are pretty much out of options. 

Which is why we are hearing rumblings of stacking the court once the Democrats win back the Senate and the Presidency. Arrogantly, the Democrats are assuming that will happen in 2020, which seems like a pretty big "if" to me. But if they do so, the effort will likely fail given how previous efforts in the past have failed as well. And if they succeed? Let's just say I don't like the countries chances of remaining peaceful if that happens...  

Justice Department declares Portland, Seattle, and New York "anarchist jurisdictions"

 

Attorney General Bill Barr. NBC News/AP.

The Justice Department has declared Portland, Seattle and New York City "anarchist jurisdictions". NBC News. The declaration will cause a review of money spent in those jurisdictions. The label was applied due to those cities failing to stop the riots that have devastated those cities. More specifically the order criticized efforts to defund police, failure to charge rioters and the rejection of federal help to bring the jurisdictions under control. Democrats predictably condemned the move. 

My Comment:

A welcome and necessary move to bring these jurisdictions under control. It's been clear for a very long time that these cities have done nothing to protect their citizens for rioters and looters. They are on the same side as the anarchists destroying their cities and it's the least the federal government can do by cutting off their funding. 

The media has downplayed how damaged these cities have been by the riots. Many businesses have been destroyed and several people have died, especially in Portland. The CHAP/CHAZ experiment ended with several people dead, and all of the cities have had an explosion in crimes.  

The cities leadership have had no interest in stopping any of this and they are doing it because of politics. Not only do they support the politics of the rioters, they think hurting President Trump is more important than anything else. They want to portray any effort to stop the rioters, Antifa and Black Lives Matter, as fascist, as if maintaining order and stopping terrorism is fascist, only because they think by doing so they will hurt President Trump. But given the politics of people like Ted Wheeler, he might actually be high on his own supply of nonsense. 

Other cities might qualify for this review as well. It seems as though Washington D.C. is getting off the hook as supposedly their mayor has told President Trump that she would shape up. As for other jurisdictions, I think that Minneapolis probably deserves the same treatment, even though they eventually cracked down after Antifa and Black Lives Matter destroyed a large portion of the city. 

Will this actually do anything to help these cities? I don't know. My guess is that these mayors are so captured by their ideology that they won't change for anything, even if it means their cities have to suffer for it. I mean, that's obvious as their failure to crack down on rioters proves this already. But it will likely place some pressure on these men, especially if President Trump wins his 2nd term (which he likely will).

As for the people that live in these cities, the smart ones are already leaving. The ones that can't or won't will have to suffer. I'd feel sorry for them, but they voted for the mayors and governors that have done this to their cities. 

I do worry about the people that leave. Like the exodus of people from California, the people that flee these areas for their crazy far-left policies then move to new areas and do the exact same thing. I would hope that these people would learn something but experience tells me that they won't learn a damn thing.  

Bar owner who shot and killed a rioter in Omaha commits suicide after being charged in his death.

 

Screenshot from the video of the shooting. KMTV/Daily Mail.

 A bar owner who shot and killed a rioter in Omaha has committed suicide after being charged in his death. The Daily Mail. Jake Gardner, 38, confronted Black Lives Matter rioters in Omaha outside of his business. There was a scuffle and Gardner was knocked down on the ground and he fired two shots. 22 year old James Scurlock jumped on Gardner's back and then was shot and killed. The DA initially refused to press charges but pressure from activists sent to the case to the grand jury, which came back with four charges for Gardner, including manslaughter, terroristic threats, attempted assault and using a weapon. Gardner was a Marine veteran with PTSD and had fled the area due to threats against his life and he committed suicide in Oregon. His lawyers said they were confident that he would beat the charges on the grounds of self-defense while the special prosecutor said that there was evidence of Garner planning the incident. Gardner had been charged in the past for various crimes, some involving weapons.

My Comment:

A sad outcome to this case. It's unclear if it was self defense or not but Gardner will never get his day in court now. With his death the truth will likely never come out. It's possible more information will come out but we will never know if the case would have ended with an acquittal or with a conviction. 

From what I understand Gardner had a bad time of it. Not only was he charged with several crimes, he fled to California because of the massive amount of death threats he was getting from Black Lives Matter and other groups. When he got to California he had to be evacuated from the massive fires there and he ended up killing himself in Oregon. I am guessing it was just too much for a guy with PTSD to handle. 

There is video of the shooting but it doesn't show much and there isn't any audio. Some are claiming that Gardner said something racist, which is possible, but doesn't justify an attack on him. Getting knocked down and jumped on seems like a pretty good case for self defense, so unless there is some severe context we are missing I have no idea why the case was charged this way. My guess is that it was politically motivated. 

I have no sympathy for Scurlock. Even if Gardner was the bad actor, Scurlock caused his own death by jumping on Gardner. He never would have been shot if he hadn't tried to fight a guy armed with a gun. Even if Gardner was an avowed racist or something, the dumbest thing anyone could do is try and tackle someone armed with a gun. If you do that you are probably going to get shot. I don't know why Black Lives Matter is supporting Scurlock, he was an idiot. 

I do think that much of the blame for this incident is on Black Lives Matter and the lack of police response. People wouldn't have to protect their properties from rioters if these riots weren't happening or if police cracked down hard on them.  

Suspect in White House ricin case arrested trying to cross the US-Canadian border with gun.

 

Stock photo of the White House. The Hill/Getty.

A suspect in the White House ricin case has been arrested trying to cross the US-Canadian border with a gun. The Hill. The suspect was arrested at a border station while carrying a gun. An envelope containing the ricin was intercepted at the White House sorting facility. The suspect hasn't been identified but has been confirmed to be a woman. Canada and the United States are working together on the case. 

My Comment:

Just a quick update to yesterday's post. It looks like they caught someone rather quickly and the threat is now over. However, it looks like the threat was a bit bigger then I thought it was. I said that using ricin this way isn't effective but it appears that this woman had a firearm as well. The threat to the President himself remained low, it's not sure if she was going to target someone else. 

Still, it doesn't seem like this person was very smart. Not only did she use a method of attack that was doomed to failure, she also got caught on the border while armed. She had basically no chance of succeeding... in whatever the hell she was trying to do. 

I am somewhat surprised that this turned out to be a woman. I shouldn't be, poison is often the weapon of choice for women. What is more surprising is that she was armed with a gun. Not only is that a rare choice of a weapon, she's also Canadian. Where did she get the gun? It's unclear if it was a handgun or a rifle, but it's not that easy to get a gun in Canada. Of course it doesn't matter too much if you are a criminal as there are always sources of illegal firearms. 

Regardless, this woman is going away for a long time. Trying to assassinate the President of the United States is a serious crime and using the mail to do it is even worse. We take mail crimes very seriously, but that's not the only problem. She will also face weapons charges and I am thinking she will never be a free person again.

As for motive, who knows? She could be some random crazy person or she could have done this for some political reason. Without more information it's just speculation. However, the important thing is that she got caught. 

Letter containing Ricin sent to President Trump but was intercepted.

 

A stock photo of the White House. BBC/Getty.

A letter containing the poison Ricin was sent to President Trump, but was intercepted. BBC. The letter was found at a screening center for White House mail. The FBI is investigating where the envelope came from and if there are any other ones out in circulation. The New York Times reports that the letter was sent from Canada. Ricin has been used in the past to attack the White House, once during the Obama administration and once previously during the Trump administration. Ricin is a deadly poison and when ground up and placed in a letter it could cause sickness and death. 

My Comment:

Once again, thank God for stupid terrorists. This attack had zero chance to hurt President Trump. At worst they could have maybe hurt one of his workers at the mail processing stations but even that is unlikely. The US Postal Service is very experienced with this threat and wouldn't ever let a letter like this go anywhere near the President. 

Indeed, I don't remember any of these Ricin attacks resulting in a death. The Wikipedia list doesn't show any deaths other then the professional hit job by the KGB. None of these attacks involving using the mail haven't killed anyone and I doubt they will in the future. In theory the method could kill someone, if they weren't a public figure like the President with screened mail, but it still isn't likely. 

I do wonder if the Times report that this attack came from Canada is true. If so it makes very little sense. Why would a Canadian care so much about President Trump to try and attack him? It's not like Trump has that much to do with Canada. It makes me think that this attack was likely ideological in nature, not some lone nutjob looking for attention.

So what kind of nutjob would it be? It could be anything at this point, including Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism isn't much of  a threat these days, but there are still people out there that follow the ideology and are willing to conduct attacks. 

But my guess is that it is likely left-wing violence. Canada is a major left wing state with many radicals that hate anyone conservative. Antifa is very active there and so is Black Lives Matter. A people with beliefs aligning with those groups could certainly have pulled off this attack, but I doubt it was more organized then that. 

Of course, for all we know that report that the attack came from Canada is false or misleading. And any speculation about motive is just that, speculation. Indeed, it could be almost anything at this point and it might just turn out to be someone with no real motive at all. 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87, with massive political implications.

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Reuters. 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died from pancreatic cancer, leaving a vacancy on the court. Reuters. The 87 year old had been on the court since 1993 and led the court's liberal wing. Her death means that the 5-4 conservative majority will move to 6-3 after President Trump nominates a replacement and the senate confirms him or her. The effort to replace Ginsburg will likely lead to a massive fight with the Democrats. If the effort succeeds it will be the third justice that President Trump has replaced. 

My Comment:

Huge news today and news with massive implications. The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg will make the Kavanaugh hearings, where he was falsely accused of being a sexual predator, look like nothing. It will be a major victory for President Trump and cap off his first term with a massive win. 

I have never been a fan of a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I do have some respect for her. Despite being critically ill she did her best to stay on in order to preserve her seat on the Supreme Court. She was ill for a long time with many different kinds of cancer but she fought as hard as she could. There is something to be said for that. 

She did make a critical error though. She could have retired during President Obama's turn and her seat would have been safe. Given her health issues it would have been the safe move to make but she made the same assumption the media made in 2016. That Hillary Clinton would have been the President. We all know how that worked out and I am guessing that Ginsburg regretted that decision in the end. 

I don't buy the argument that the Republicans should wait until the election is over with to replace Ginsburg. It just seems like special pleading on the Democrats part. Sure, the Republicans didn't take up Merrick Garland in the lead up to 2016, but that was because he was totally unacceptable to the Republicans and wouldn't not have ever been confirmed with the GOP in control of the Senate. If the Democrats wanted to confirm him they should have won the senate in 2014. And if they wanted to replace Ginsburg they should have won the Senate in 2018. Since they didn't do either of those things they have no right to complain. And if the situation was reversed? I have no doubt that the Democrats would push their guy through. 

Who will replace Ginsburg? I am not sure. The White House released an updated list of candidates and the replacement will be drawn from that list. It's likely that the candidate will be a woman and one of the candidates, Senator Ted Cruz, has already said that he won't accept if nominated. It's unclear which candidate will be picked and I don't really want to speculate too much on who it will be. Nominating a woman is probably the right choice as it will make the Democrats efforts to prevent it much harder as attacks on a woman will be viewed as sexist. In theory at least, we will see how it works out in practice.

The death of Ginsburg significantly raises the stakes of the 2020 election. The Democrats are going to be furious and will understand that they will be locked out of the Supreme Court for a generation. It would also mean that the Supreme Court would actually be conservative. I know technically there is a 5-4 majority. but Chief Justice Roberts has not been reliable at all. He seems more concerned about not pissing off the Democrats than making the rulings he was put on the court to make. He's the reason we haven't repealed the draconian gun laws that are clearly unconstitutional. 

He may have a point though as the big fear is that the Democrats will punish the court the next time they take the White House and Senate. That will probably not be in 2020, but in the future it's very possible that the Democrats will come up with a court packing scheme to take away whatever conservative majority there is on the court. Doing so would likely lead to civil war but it seems clear that the Democrats no longer care. 

However, it's no sure thing that the Democrats will take anything in 2020 or even in 2024. The GOP is going to be even more motivated to vote now. I know a lot of Republicans who are iffy on President Trump's personality but even they will have to admit that he is getting results on the courts. And it's not just the Supreme Court either, it's the appeals and other federal courts as well, to the point where the 9th district, famous for terrible rulings, has now flipped conservatives. If the GOP wants to preserve those accomplishments they have little choice but to vote for President Trump.  

President Trump says he is readying an executive order on education that would counter critical race theory and the 1619 project.

 

President Donald Trump makes the announcement. NBC News/AP

President Trump says he is readying an executive order on education that would counter critical race theory and the 1619 project with a more patriotic curriculum. NBC News. Trump announced the formation of a 1776 commission on education. He said that the 1619 project and other applications of critical race theory are a form of child abuse. President Trump has been moving against critical race theory and has banned the use of training based on the theory. He has also threatened to pull funding from schools that adopt the 1619 project. 

My Comment:

Another welcome move from the Trump administration. A country cannot survive if the children aren't taught to love and revere it. A new curriculum that shows the good parts of America is well needed and I hope that this comes to pass as soon as possible. 

The alternative is just stupid. The 1619 project is not something that should be taught in school and neither should critical race theory. The idea that the United States is a uniquely and unforgivably racist country is not one that is supported by evidence or reality. We do have issues with race and racism but that doesn't mean we have to teach kids that the entire country is damned because of it or downplay the fact that every other country has issues with race and racism as well. 

And I do think that critical race theory is racist. If we were to make the same accusations against Jews that are made against white people in critical race theory we would be rightly denounced as anti-Semitic. But somehow a theory that says that all white people are racist and that America is racist as well because it tolerates it isn't racist itself? It's a joke. 

President Trump is right, this is child abuse. Blaming white children for things that are completely beyond their control is damaging to them. It won't make them less racist, indeed, I see the opposite happening where people understand that if they are going to be denounced as racist they might as well do it anyways. 

And I think it will be damaging to non-white students as well. I don't think black children are served by saying that they are helpless because white people have kept them down for hundreds of years. It would much better to tell them they can do whatever they want and failure and success will be on their own terms. 

What about other non-white, non-black groups? As usual, they get ignored. With critical race theory, Asians and Hispanics are lower on the totem pole and tend to be considered white when it is convenient and non-white when it isn't. They get many of the disadvantages but none of the benefits.

I have always thought that critical race theory was a rip off of Christian ideology and the concept of original sin. Like critical race theory, the concept of original sin says that people are born bad and that everyone is wretched from birth. The big difference with Christianity is that there is a possibility of salvation and forgiveness. For the woke, forgiveness is a sin itself.  

Tackling this issue is long overdue. The far left has captured much of the machinery of the state and control education, medicine and government, even if they lose elections. Anything that is done to erode this power is a positive and I think that President Trump's biggest problem here is that he waited so long to do so. There are going to be a lot of new voters who have been raised with this garbage and it's going to be very hard to undue this damage. 

 

Attorney General Bill Barr tells federal prosecutors to consider sedition charges against rioters.

Attorney General Bill Barr. Government photo. 

Attorney General Bill Barr has told federal prosecutors to consider sedition charges against rioters. The Hill. Barr also told prosecutors to charge rioters with federal crimes even if local charges could apply. Sedition charges are quite serious and carry a 20 year sentence but also require evidence of a conspiracy and evidence that the people charged had planned attacks on the government or were trying to overthrow the government. Barr warned that violent riots would likely continue in the lead up to the election and beyond. Since riots began, over 200 people have drawn federal charges. 

My Comment:

Though this is a welcome move I wish that the US Government had moved against these radicals a long time ago. As far as I am concerned it should have been a day one priority to dismantle Antifa and the militant offshoots of Black Lives Matter. Unfortunately Jeff Sessions was more interested in charging legal marijuana sellers then doing his job. And for whatever reason the initial response to the 2020 riots were weak, likely due to election concerns. 

I think it's totally justified to target these rioters with sedition. Under federal law, it's pretty clear that the attacks on the federal buildings more than qualify for the charge. And given that Antifa is fairly well organized and has overthrowing the US government as a goal. If that isn't sedition nothing is. How difficult these charges will be to prove in court is another thing but if convicted it will take some of the worst actors out of the game.

Of course this wouldn't be necessary if local officials would do their jobs. In places like Portland and Seattle, rioters are just let out so they can continue to commit crimes. And it's clear that the officials in these cities are on the side of the rioters and won't punish them expect for all but the most egregious behavior.  

I think a crackdown will likely stop these riots fairly quick. Antifa might be willing to take a misdemeanor charge, but a federal felony is not something you can laugh off. Even defending against the charges successfully will drain their bank accounts. 

This should have a chilling effect on the worst actors. The worst of the worst will be in prison and the next tier after that will likely be too scared to continue. And the casual people won't even consider rioting if they understand that they could be in prison for as many as 20 years. 

However, it does seem that rioting has calmed down a bit regardless. I think part of that is due to the weather and fire conditions in the West Coast. People aren't going to riot if they can barely breath outside. And the firebugs are busy burning the wilderness and not random buildings. And as the weather cools it will likely deter more rioters who aren't going to be willing to brave the cold. 

That being said, I am expecting more riots as the year goes on. Regardless of the results of the election, Antifa is going to keep trying to get their revolution. And when President Trump wins, it's going to get a lot worse. Thankfully it seems that the government is finally taking things seriously and if we get lucky a whole lot of very bad people will be going to prison. 

President Trump hosts Middle East peace deal between Israel, UAE and Bahrain.

The flags of the countries involved in the peace deal. BBC/Reuters.

President Trump hosted a signing ceremony for a new peace deal in Washington between America, Israel, Bahrain and the UAE. BBC. The two gulf states have normalized ties between Israel, being the only Arab states to have normal ties outside of Egypt and Jordan. It is hoped that other gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia will join Bahrain and the UAE in normalizing relations with Israel. The move is being hailed as a victory for President Trump as he was the one to broker the deal. Looming in the background of the deal is Iran, which is considered a threat to Sunni nations in the Gulf. 

My Comment:

I originally covered this story last month. Most of what I said back then still applies. The main difference is Bahrain has joined the deal as well. This is a major victory for President Trump and one of the larger diplomatic deals the United States has pulled off in a long time. Peace in the Middle East is a lot closer today then it has been in a long time. 

That doesn't mean that there isn't more work to do. The issue of Palestine isn't going away anytime soon. Israel is still building settlements and the Palestinians are still supporting terrorism. And a lot of people in the Gulf still support them over the Israelis. 

But it's also clear that the tide is turning and it's turning because of Iran. all of the Gulf states share a common enemy with Israel in Iran. Given how aggressive Iran has been and how dangerous a war would be between any of the Gulf states and Iran, it makes sense they would seek a new possible ally in Israel. 

That being said, it doesn't really take away from President Trump's accomplishment here. Many presidents have tried to broker a peace deal in the Middle East and none of them has been big as this one. Doing so was not easy and its a huge accomplishment.

President Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for this deal, and separately for the Kosovo/Serbia peace deal that was also signed recently and brokered by the President. If there was any justice in the world he would win twice over. Far from the warmonger loose cannon that he was portrayed as back in the lead up to the 2016 election, President Trump has been a powerful force for peace. 

Of course the media isn't having any of it. CNN didn't even mention what the ceremony was for, only that there wasn't much social distancing. And the Washington Post called both deals as fake. It's clear that the media understands that this is a huge win for the President and are trying to downplay it.  

At least 35 people have died in wildfires burning the west coast.

A firefighter puts out a firebreak in California. NPR/Getty/Bloomberg.

At least 35 people have died in wildfires in California, Oregon and Washington that have burned 4.6 million acres in 87 separate fires. NPR. The fires have not only devastated forests and rural communities, they have caused a massive drop in air quality. The fires are even threatening major cities like Portland. 

My Comment:

I haven't been covering this story but a look at the sky today made me think I probably should mention it. Even here in Wisconsin the skies were pretty hazy when I went grocery shopping. Considering how far away were are from these fires that's really saying something. 

These fires are worse then they usually are. California always has fires in the late summer/early fall, but it is unusual to see these fires in places like Washington and Oregon. These areas are a bit more drier then they usually are, which is why these fires have been so bad. 

I consider many of these fires to be human caused. The firebugs are out and they love causing fires like this. I know a lot of people are blaming Antifa for these fires and I think there is some truth to that. 

But not in the way they think. I don't think these fires are an organized thing by Antifa. Some of the fires may have been started by Antifa members (I think there has been one arrest of an Antifa member, but go ahead and try and find that using a search engine. I'll wait.), but that doesn't mean that it's organized. Instead, I think that Antifa is the kind of group that is going to attract pyromaniacs in the first place. These people are drawn to rioters, not because they believe in the cause but because they want to set things on fire and the riots give them cover to do so. And the fires are doing the same thing here. 

Local citizens aren't having any of it though. Unlike the national news media they understand that looters and arsonists are a threat and are organizing to protect their homes and communities. As long as some of these fires are being caused by arson, as far as I am concerned it's a good thing. 

That being said, many of these fires would have happened without the intervention of arsonists. Fires are a natural thing regardless and the weather and climate is right for these kinds of things. All it would take is a lightning strike. 

Plus, we can't forget how badly these western states are run. The power companies are a major problem in starting these fires. Unlike everywhere else in the country, they do not put resources in clearing brush around power-lines and that is a recipe for disaster. More competence in this area would have helped things but wouldn't stop all of these fires. 

Worst of all is forest management. Logging, controlled burns and other types of forest management aren't used in these states due to concerns over the environment, ironically enough. These forests are designed for fire and if they don't happen or the underbrush isn't cleared out, the fires that happen are much worse then they had to be. Of course the state governments won't ever admit it because then it would be their fault. 

Instead the governors of these states choose to blame global warming instead. I won't say that climate doesn't have an effect or that the climate isn't changing, but I will say that using it as an excuse is unacceptable. Plus, the mismanagement of this issue sure seems to be releasing a large amount of carbon, which is supposed to be a major driver of climate change in the first place...

Why is President Trump in Nevada?

 

President Donald Trump

As you probably know, President Trump has had several events in Nevada this weekend. Indeed, he's played to huge crowds and has been popular in the state. I am sure that President Trump could go pretty much anywhere and get huge crowds, so the question is why is President Trump spending time in the state?

Nevada is widely seen as a safe blue state for the Democrats. Hillary Clinton won the state 48% to 45%. The polling hasn't been frequent in the state but Biden has a similar lead over President Trump there. On the surface it makes little sense for President Trump to campaign there. 

So why is President Trump doing it? It's possible that Nevada is in play. President Trump does appear to be doing better among Hispanics and Nevada has a large population there. It's possible that the difference could be made up if President Trump gets a larger number of Hispanics. If so, it could make sense to campaign there. 

It's also possible that the polling is way off and President Trump's internal polls show that he can make a play for the state. I suspect that might be the case as the polling is pretty laughable at this point nationwide. The polling companies are still massively oversampling Democrats and under sampling Republicans and independents. Without further knowledge I can't really say for sure. 

It could also just mean that President Trump is very confident that he is going to win. A win in Nevada might not be necessary but it could help rub in his victory to the Democrats face. I don't know how much evidence there is for this as far as I am aware victory is likely, but not certain. 

For me personally? I don't think that Nevada is a likely swing state. They have done some major shenanigans with their mail-in ballots and I am guessing that even if President Trump has made up ground there, it's going to be erased by widespread voter fraud. No matter how many votes President Trump gets in the state they will find late ballots to make up the difference. 

Which could be another reason why President Trump is campaigning in the state. If people feel the state is in play, Trump campaigning there sends that message, they might be less likely to believe voter fraud if Biden wins the state by ten points or something. 

Still, I think there are better targets for President Trump. Minnesota is the easiest choice as the riots there likely moved a lot of independents and Democrats away from the party. Hillary Clinton barely won the state by less then a percentage point. It seems like an easy state to pick up, but President Trump isn't campaigning much there at this point. 

President Trump probably should focus on the Midwest. States like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio will be needed to win and it would be nice to shore up those states. And Minnesota isn't the only swing state in play. New Hampshire might be in play as well. If I was in his shoes I would be focusing on those states rather then a longshot like Nevada. But maybe President Trump knows something we don't?