The United States will ban travel from India on May 4th due to the Coronavirus pandemic.

 

A mass cremation in India. CNBC.

The Biden Administration will ban travel from India on May 4th due to the Coronavirus Pandemic. CNBC. Cases and deaths in the United States have been declining thanks to vaccines, but India has been dealing with a massive 2nd wave of the virus. India has had an average of 375,000 cases and 3000 deaths in the past few weeks, and experts thing those numbers are undercounted. Some fear that the severity of the outbreak is due to a new strain found in India, but that strain is already in the United States. The ban won't stop flights from India, but will stop non-citizens and non-resident aliens from flying. 

My Comment:

Kinda wondering what the point of this is. If the feared India variant of the Coronavirus is already hear, why stop travel? And I don't know if the Indian variant is even something we have to worry about. There isn't any consensus yet on if the virus is more dangerous but my guess is that it is not. 

Will banning travel from India help otherwise though? It might help a little. There could be some people that could infect American citizens and that could cause some problems. But is it worth it to ban all people from India? 

But the problem is that the justification of banning people from India falls apart when there are still flights going to and from the country. Citizens and resident aliens can still come and they can still carry the virus. Plus I think Indian citizens can just catch a flight from a country that does not have restrictions. 

I also think that India's problems are mostly related to being India. If we had the same strain they do we would not be having the problems they are having. Like I said in my post yesterday, I think the problem for India is poor hygiene, crowded conditions, a lack of vaccinations and the fact that the 1st wave there was very minor. 

None of those are really true for the United States. We are pretty hygienic and not anywhere nearly as crowded as India. We have done a much better job of vaccinating our people as well. But the biggest problem for another wave here is the fact that many people here have had the virus. I just don't think there are enough people left that either haven't caught the virus already or haven't been vaccinated for a major new wave of infections. 

So was this the right call by the Biden Administration? I honestly think that it is mostly pointless. It might stop a few cases so it might be worth it. But it's a drop in the bucket for the problem we already have and I doubt it will accomplish much. I don't oppose the action, I just don't think it will do much.

I do have to say that I never would have thought that Joe Biden would make this decision. The Obama administration never stopped travel during the big Ebola outbreak back in 2014 to 2016 and the Democrats were furious with President Trump when he canceled travel to China. The fact that a Democrat can actually take this action marks a big change from what the Democrats were saying just a few years ago. 

India's 2nd wave of Coronavirus infections appears to be out of control.

 

Indian mass cremation site. Reuters. 

India's 2nd wave of Coronavirus infections appears to be out of control, with hundreds of thousands of new cases and thousands of deaths each day. Reuters. Hospitals and morgues are being overran and supplies are running out. Oxygen containers are in short supply though India claims that they will be able to have that sorted out by mid-May. India has begun vaccinations but only 9% of India's population have gotten their first dose, with many people reporting difficulties even getting an appointment as the website for signing up crashes regularly. It is unclear how reliable India's numbers are as there are fears that the case numbers and deaths have been underreported. Experts believe that India's large festivals and political rallies have contributed to the spread of the virus. Other countries, including the United States, are sending supplies and aid to India. 

My Comment:

I don't think that it is any surprise that India is having a difficult time handling the Coronavirus outbreak. The country is crowded and has a primitive medical system so it is no surprise that they are having problems. The real question is why they are having problems now. 

Indeed, as cases and infections raged in Europe and America India had very few cases in comparison. You would have been forgiven for thinking that India was a model example of how to handle the virus until the last few weeks. But now? It's clear that things have changed.

So why has this happened? I think it probably has to do with the fact that there were some absolutely massive gatherings recently. It's election season and the crowd size of some of these rallies was huge. There were also some major religious festivals that had millions of people attending. And it's pretty clear that nobody was social distancing. 

But that is also true to parts of the United States. Florida hasn't had mask mandates for a long time and has allowed smaller gatherings. There was never a major 2nd wave there and the virus is generally an afterthought now in most of America. 

I think the real problem is how crowded India is. In America it's pretty easy to avoid close contact with strangers. I went to the store today and I never even came close to coming closer than six feet to someone, and I was not even trying to avoid them. In India you can't swing a dead cat around without hitting 50 people. That's the perfect environment for a disease like Coronavirus to spread. 

The other problem is that India's medical system has been overwhelmed. That never happened in the United States. The closest we ever got was in New York and even that wasn't that bad. But in India? They hardly had the medical infrastructure to deal with normal day to day medical care. They had no chance to deal with the problem once it got out of control.

I also don't think that India's population is that healthy in the first place. They have problems with nutrition, obesity and other infectious diseases. They also have major problems with pollution. Since Covid mostly kills people that have other diseases this is not a good thing.  

It also seems that the vaccine rollout has been bad for India as well. Unlike the United States who have vaccinated 43% of the population having one does and 30% with at least one dose, India only has 9% who have gotten at least one dose. They have been focusing on medical people and health care workers which is useful but it leaves a lot of vulnerable people exposed. 

Is there a way out for India? Not for awhile. Without a major vaccination rate and with few people having been exposed the virus will continue to spread like wildfire. It's going to be a tough time for them and a lot of people will die. Are things as bad as they say? It's very hard to tell, but it is clear that at the very least the virus is spreading fairly well. 

It's strange to think about it though as the outbreak is basically over here in Wisconsin. New cases are down to double digits and a ton of people are vaccinated (60% at my place of employment). The idea that people are still dealing with this disease is so weird as it just isn't the case here in Wisconsin. 

Two killed and 16 injured in mass stabbing at a kindergarten in China.

 

Beiliu in China, is where the stabbing occurred. BBC. 

Two children were murdered and 16 other people were injured in a mass stabbing at a kindergarten in China. BBC. The victims were 16 students and 2 teachers. The attacker was a 24 year old man and police have not released a motive for the attack. China has had a long history of mass stabbings targeting school children and the attackers have mostly been people who are mentally ill or seeking some kind of revenge. 

ABC is reporting that the attacker was going through a divorce with one of the teachers who worked at the school. The attacker also timed his attack to coincide with the schools naptime. 

My Comment:

Horrible story out of China and one that proves that school attacks are not just an American phenomenon. China has had a long history of these kinds of attacks and this is just the latest of the trend. Thankfully only two children died but I am guessing that the injured children will be effected for life. 

I think the main reason that China has these kinds of attacks is the same reason that America has mass shootings. When one of these attacks happens media gives it wide coverage and that inspires copycats. In the United States we had a wave of copycat attacks after Atlanta spa shootings this year, and I am guessing that the same thing is happening in China. When you have some loser that is angry at the world they will look at the media coverage as inspiration.

I also think that China's spate of mass stabbings at schools shows that gun control doesn't work. Violence doesn't go away just because you ban guns. People will always find a way to cause massive violence if the will and desire is there. 

With that being said I do think that China's mass stabbing problem is a very disturbing one. It takes a very sick person to try and stab a bunch of kindergartners. And it's an ongoing problem too. It's even worse in my opinion than a mass shooting as at least with a shooting you are somewhat distant to your victims. To pull off this kind of crime you have to be both sick and evil. 

I don't know what China could do to prevent these kinds of crimes. I think there are always going to be people out there that want to cause violence and death and China probably isn't going to be the country that will solve that problem. I would suggest arming teachers but given how afraid of guns China's government seems to be I don't think that will happen anytime soon.  

French generals warn Emmanuel Macron that France could be heading towards civil war.

 

French Defense Minster Florence Parly. France24/AFP.

25 retired and active French generals have signed an open letter to President Emmanuel Macron warning that the country is heading towards civil war if he does not act on radical Islam. AFP. The generals also warned that the military may have to intervene if Macron fails to act. Defense Minister Parly said that the active duty generals will be punished for violating their political neutrality. The statement comes as the election season is begining in France where centrist Macron will face right wing Marine Le Pen. Le Pen praised the letter and invited the generals to join her campaign for the presidency. France has suffered massive terror attacks from radical Muslims, crime and unchecked immigration. Macron himself has reacted to these issues, including the notable decapitation of a French teacher. 

The full text of the letter, which was also signed by 1000 lower ranked officers, can be seen here in French. (Google translate is helpful here...)

My Comment:

Fairly interesting development from France. From what I understand most of these generals are retired and some of them have gotten in trouble for speaking their minds in the first place. It's not every day that you see people threatening civil war in any country, let alone a western one like France. 

If you read the translated document though it's clear that radical Islam isn't the only thing these generals are upset by. Indeed, it seems that American style "wokism" has infected France as well. They pretty clearly condemn things like tearing down statues and racism masquerading as anti-racism. 

Perhaps sensing this attack coming Macron himself has condemned the woke as well. It's clear that France has little apatite for the nonsense we are seeing here in the United States. No matter who wins in 2022 it's clear that neither side will be supporting the woke/BLM/antifa.

Speaking of antifa, the generals also condemned their attempted hijacking of the Yellow Vest movement, which was/is a major demonstration against the leftist polices that Macron pushed in terms of taxes and environmentalism. That movement largely succeeded in their goals but there was a danger that the far left was going to take over the entire movement. 

But the elephant in the room is Islamic terrorism and migration. France is notorious for not having assimilated their Muslim population and there are many parts of the country that are under de facto Muslim rule. And the number of massive and horrible terror attacks in France probably outpaces any other European country. The Charlie Hebdo attacks, the Paris massacres, the Nice ramming attacks, several decapitations and countless other minor attacks. It has been terrible in France for a long time.

And it's not just terror attacks either. France has dealt with major crime waves and the Islamic immigrants take a ton of money in benefits. There are parts of the country where the cops don't go and crime is out of control. 

Do I think a civil war in France is possible? Or some kind of military coup? Probably not. I think this is more about pressuring Macron to move further to the right so even if he wins the country will shift to a more right wing/anti immigrant position. I think that a war is possible but it's much more likely that this is just a power move to influence policy. 

The Supreme Court has finally taken up a major gun rights case challenging "may issue" concealed carry laws.

 

My personal CZ-PO7. 

The Supreme Court has finally taken up a major gun rights case challenging "may issue" concealed carry laws. NBC News. The Court has been reluctant to cover gun rights cases since the landmark Columbia vs Heller case back in 2008. The case involves citizens of New York state who wanted to have concealed carry permits but were rejected for not showing a "special need" to carry a firearm and brought suit with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. New York also has a ban on open carrying firearms, and with permits being "may issue" carrying firearms is essentially banned in the state. The fact that the case was taken up at all may show that the Court's conservatives are more confident that they can get a pro-gun ruling now that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is on the Court. The last major gun rights case was dropped for being moot but Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch opposed the move while Justice Kavanagh said the court should take up more gun rights cases. 

My Comment:

Huge day for gun rights and gun rights supporters as the whole community will be waiting with baited breath for the outcome of this case. It's got the potential to be the biggest gun rights win since Columbia vs Heller and one of the only ones since then on the federal level. If it's a win then it will probably secure the right to bear arms at least for the foreseeable future.

I had always thought that the restrictions on concealed carry were nonsensical. If the 2nd Amendment allows for bearing arms (and it does) then how can you force someone to not be able to bear arms? The people of New York, Hawaii and other states that have "may issue" permit schemes have essentially banned the right to self defense in public as well as obviously violating the 2nd Amendment rights of their citizens. 

Indeed, it's clear that concealed carry laws have been loosened in recent years. In my state, for example, we had open carry for years but did not gain concealed carry until 2011. Many states have followed suit and every state has at least a chance to issue permits. Indeed, only New Jersey, and Hawaii are de facto no issue states with large parts of California and New York allowing permits on a shall issue basis. The rest of the states with "may issue" at least give normal people a chance to get the permits. The rest of the country either has "shall issue" permits or are constitutional carry states with no permits required at all. 

Jeff Dege.

As you can see the trend is clearly to moving to a permitless or shall issue system and it's only a few states that remain no-issue in practice or even "may issue". It's one of the biggest accomplishments that the gun rights community has done and now we could get a potential Supreme Court ruling in our favor protecting what we have gained. 

I think it also proves that the gun control community has been full of crap when it comes to their arguments for concealed carry. Though gun crime has ebbed and waned through the years the one thing we didn't see was a massive wave of permitted gun owners committing the crime. Wisconsin hasn't turned into the wild west and though people carry here every day I have never seen anyone draw a gun, or even accidently print or expose their firearm. The argument that allowing people to carry firearms will lead to violence is obviously wrong. 

The elephant in the room though is whether or not the court will rule the right way. Everyone thought that the previous New York case was a slam dunk for the gun rights community but the court ended up punting on it, declaring the issue moot. The main theory at the time is that Chief Justice Roberts did not want to issue a ruling that would upset the Democratic Party so he threw the case.  

Indeed, it was thought that the Courts four remaining conservative justices (Roberts is not conservative, no matter that he was appointed by George Bush) were blocking gun rights cases because they knew they didn't have the votes to actually protect the 2nd Amendment. In theory that has changed with Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead and Amy Cony Barrett now on the bench. If there are no further defections this ruling should pass in a 5-4 manner with a small chance of Roberts joining in a 6-3 ruling.

 The great fear is that there will somehow be another defection. It would be a massive disappointment and I can't imagine any of the five conservative justices ruling that way but you would have never thought that Roberts was going to rule the way he did in the past either. My guess is this is just the gun rights community being nervous, Justice Thomas would never allow this case to come to the court unless they had a good idea that they were going to rule in favor of gun rights. 

The bigger threat is what the Democrats do in response. Though Roberts is a coward, he is right that the Democrats do want to damage the integrity of the Supreme Court. Though the issue of court packing has faded into the background a major ruling in favor of gun rights might reignite the issue. I still say that court packing is very unlikely in this session of congress but in the unlikely event that the Democrats retain control of the house and senate after the 2022 elections then it's very possible the Court could be destroyed in revenge for a positive gun rights ruling, with the case reversed by the new liberally aligned court. 

Still, that's an unlikely outcome and it is a lot more likely that this case will end with a major victory for Americans and their rights. It's too early to declare victory but I am guessing that the few remaining "shall issue" states are going to have to adjust their laws fairly soon. 

Keep in mind though that the Supreme Court operates at a glacial pace. We are probably not going to see a ruling in this case until Summer at the earliest and Fall at the latest. Until then the people of the "shall issue" states will continue to have their rights violated. 

Caitlyn Jenner files paperwork to run for governor in California's recall election...

 

Jenner in 2015. UN photo.

Caitlyn Jenner has filed paperwork to run for governor in California's recall election. NBC News. Jenner will be running as a Republican in a recall election where anyone can run. Jenner is probably the most notable name to go up against Gavin Newsom and is a celebrity known for sports, reality TV and LGBT activism. Jenner is running on a platform of opposing one party rule in California and against Coronavirus lockdowns. Jenner may face an uphill battle against Newsom and whoever else decides to run if the recall election happens as she burned many bridges with Republicans when she broke with President Donald Trump in 2018. 

I’m in! California is worth fighting for. Visit https://t.co/a1SfOAMZQ3 to follow or donate today. #RecallNewsom pic.twitter.com/9yCck3KK4D

— Caitlyn Jenner (@Caitlyn_Jenner) April 23, 2021

My Comment:

Note: for the purposes of this post I will be referring to Caitlyn Jenner with female pronouns. This is less about believing that she is a woman and more about not getting my blog banned for misgendering someone. 

It's pretty clear that the California recall election is going to be another clown show and it looks like Caitlyn Jenner is going to try and play the role that Arnold Schwarzenegger played during the last one. I do think she has a chance as crazy as that sounds. Newsome is very unpopular these days and there is a lot of anger towards him and his covid policies. Almost anyone could beat him now. 

But is Jenner the person to do it? I am not sure. The elephant in the room is the fact that she is transgender. I think there are a lot of people of both parties and independent of either, that would not vote for her just based on that. Given the unconscionable behavior of many high profile trans-activists recently and the fact that many if not most people are uncomfortable at best with the very idea of changing your gender I think Jenner might lose quite a few votes for that. 

Would I vote for a transgender person? It really depends. I think that the general trans-community needs quite a bit of pushback after they began to insist that children should be put on puberty blockers and that a five year old is ready to begin transition. I know I would have trouble voting for a trans activist, that's for sure. 

But if I liked the candidate's platform or really hated who they were running against? Sure, why not? If the choice was between a trans version of President Trump in 2020 or the normal version of Joe Biden, I would be voting for Trump. And in this case against Newsom I probably would vote for Jenner if there were no other viable candidates. He's really that bad. I won't go so far as to endorse Jenner as I don't know what the rest of her platform looks like or who she will be running against, but if it's between her and Newsom, I'm choosing her. 

There are other reasons to support and not support Jenner than the trans-elephant in the room. I personally think that she has had too many incidents in her past to really support. She was involved in a fatal car accident that left someone dead, even though that really wasn't her fault. And I think most people thought she was a joke even before she transitioned due to being involved in the Kardashian/Jenner reality TV train wreck. 

The biggest problem for Jenner though is the fact that she is a former supporter of President Trump. That's a deal breaker for much of the left, not like they were going to vote for anyone with a (R) in front of their name anyways. She won't have support of much of the LGBT community (and given the current war between the L and the T factions, she probably wouldn't have had universal support there anyways). But what is really going to hurt is the fact that Trump is still the leader of the GOP and people aren't going to forgive her for dumping him in 2018 over an issue that isn't even relevant anymore thanks to Joe Biden (transgender people in the military). 

If I was Jenner I would be doing anything in my power to get President Trump to endorse her. If he does than Jenner has a real chance of becoming governor. Newsom is unpopular and the anti-lockdown platform that Jenner is running on is probably going to be pretty popular as people get vaccinated and people really start to wonder why on earth everything is still locked down. The Trump endorsement might get a lot of Republicans to hold their nose and vote for her. Hell, it would even advance her cause of advancing the transgender community. Plus I think Trump might even do it as he seemed rather pro-trans outside of the military thing, which just seemed like common sense pragmatism than anything else. 

I do have to say that this whole situation is just bizarre. It's very possible that the first transgender politician to hold a major office will be a Republican of sorts (California GOP is a different breed but still, it counts). If you would have told someone back in 2000 that in 2021 that Bruce Jenner was now Caitlyn Jenner and is running for Governor and might actually win despite that fact you would have been looked at like a crazy person. 

Russia will pull troops away from the Ukraine border.

 

Russian military APC's. BBC/Russian military photo.

Russia's Defense Minster Sergei Shoigu has ordered thousands of Russian troops back to base and away from Ukrainian border. BBC. 100,000 troops had massed near the border with Ukraine and in Crimea. Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky welcomed the move and hoped that the tensions would lower. Minster Shoigu said that the goals of the exercise, showing that Russia was capable of defending the country, were met. 

My Comment:

Looks like tensions with Russia are decreasing a bit. They seemed extremely high for awhile there. Russia was activating 100,000 troops near Ukraine and they were also threatening to confront US ships if they entered the Black Sea. Plus they have been aggressive with their bomber forces, leading to confrontations with US forces. 

I think Joe Biden deserves much of the blame for the heightened tensions. He sent a pretty clear diplomatic insult when he called Vladimir Putin a "killer". It's probably true, but it's not like Biden is any better and it's not something that is done in diplomatic circles without consequences. For all the handwringing about President Trump insulting people, Biden has not been any better. Indeed, I think the tensions of the past few months have been higher than any time in the Trump presidency.

Tensions have decreased after the phone call that Putin had with Biden. I am not sure what was said in the meeting and I know that it followed up with new sanctions but after that the tensions have decreased. My guess is that it had less to do with what Biden said and the fact that Putin realizes that Biden is senile and not a huge threat. 

As for Ukraine I am not sure what Zelensky will do. He ran on ending the war in Donbass but has totally failed in doing so. He's also under major pressure economically because Russia's new pipeline to Europe bypasses Ukraine and will cost the country millions of dollars. 

The right thing to do would be to turn Ukraine into a federal republic, giving more rights to their Russian minorities in Donbass. That would end the war and stop the main criticism that Russia has for Ukraine. The anti-Russian laws that Zelensky's predecessors put into place were nothing short of racism and ending the war will require assurances that the people in Donbass won't have to deal with that again.

Will the war in Ukraine flare up again? Awhile ago I would have said yes but with this new move from Putin I am not so sure. It's still possible that cooler heads will prevail and a diplomatic solution will be found and the fighting will not escalate to all-out war. 

Editor's Note

 Expect posting to be slow in the next couple of days and over the weekend. I plan to be pretty busy this weekend. I'm probably going fishing tomorrow and Friday and I am working 16 hours of overtime over the weekend. I will probably have some posts up but I doubt I will have my usual daily posts.

Part of it too is that there just isn't much worth writing about. I'm burned out on criminal justice stories and all the political stories are just whining about crime and law enforcement. There isn't a whole lot going on in international relations either. I am sure I will find some things to write about but I sure didn't today. 

Officer Derek Chauvin found guilty on all three counts against him in the death of George Floyd.

 

Derek Chauvin stands in court. Reuters. 

Officer Derek Chauvin has been found guilty on all three counts against him in the death of George Floyd but will have grounds to appeal the conviction. Reuters. Chauvin was convicted of three counts, 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree manslaughter. However, there were several incidents before and during the trial that may have tainted the jury pool. Before the trial began the city of Minneapolis paid out a $27 million settlement to George Floyd's family, which implied the guilt of Chauvin and was still fresh news when the trial started. The judge in the case also refused to change venues even though the jury pool was drawn from people that could be effected by riots and local news coverage. Most alarmingly the media coverage of the trial and the comments of politicians like Maxine Waters, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Joe Biden implied that there would be riots and violence if the jury did not find Chauvin guilty on all three counts. Chauvin's defense team has 60 days to appeal the conviction. 

My Comment:

This was an awful day for American justice. Regardless of the guilt or innocence of Derek Chauvin, his trial was not a fair one. The jury should have been sequestered and the jury pool should have never been drawn from the people of Minneapolis. They had a huge incentive to convict regardless of their actual thoughts on the evidence in the case. 

To be fair, it was a difficult case. It always reminded me of the old hypothetical we heard about in my criminal justice cases. Is it still murder if a man shoots outside of a building on the first floor and hits someone who just jumped from the 10th floor? In that case the answer is yes but I am not so sure in this case here. 

George Floyd appeared to be a dead man walking. He had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system and his body was weakened by a previous Coronavirus infection as well. He then decided to resist arrest and that was too much for his body and he died. Chauvin's actions may have had nothing to do with his death. Having not watched the trial I don't know if the prosecution proved their case that Chauvin actually did cause or contribute to Floyd's death, but let's not pretend that the outcome was ever going to be good for Floyd. 

But this post isn't really about the facts of the case. It's about the drama around it and the fact that there are going to be appeals. The first problem is that the venue wasn't changed. This seems incredible to me but apparently it is very uncommon in Minnesota to change venues. This case seems like the perfect example of why that is important. With their own homes on the line, the jurors were not able to handle the case objectively. The threat of riots meant that an acquittal was going to be difficult in the first place, but it's almost impossible when your own house and workplace are on the line. 

Not sequestering the jury seems like an act of utter lunacy in this case. The media coverage was almost universal and I don't see how you could escape it. I know the jury was instructed to not watch the news but I don't see how they could have avoided the news in the last few days. It was everywhere and you can't even turn on non-news programing and avoid commercials or PSA's that imply that black people are somehow oppressed by the police. 

And I have to believe that the jurors heard about what these various scummy politicians did. Joe Biden and Jacob Frey pretty much implored the jury to convict and that's hard to ignore. Not to mention the disgusting behavior of Maxine Waters, who called for violence if the jury did not convict. 

The media was little better. The Minneapolis Star Tribune basically doxed the members of the jury. I won't post the information here because I do believe the juror's lives are still at risk, but the message was clear. Vote to convict or your life will be at risk. Everyone will know who you are and you will be lucky if it's only your life that is destroyed.

So I think that this conviction should be overturned on appeal. Will it be though? Reuters seems to think that it is unlikely and I think there is an argument for that. The same pressures that tainted the trial will likely taint the appeals process. And Minnesota is unusual that they rarely change venues, so that path will likely be closed. Though this kangaroo court was clearly in the wrong I see little hope of justice actually being done here. 

This wouldn't be such a bitter pill to swallow if it was clear that the jury wasn't influenced. I think they made the wrong choice but if this had been a fair trial with a sequestered jury not held in a city that was going to burn if they convicted, I could live with it. As it stands right now it's clear that justice was not done. Everyone deserves a fair trial regardless of the facts of the case. 

The worst thing though? This is going to make race relations so much worse. Right now every single cop in America understands that if they arrest a black man and he dies in custody, even if they follow every departmental regulation in the books and do nothing wrong personally, they could go to prison for the rest of their lives. And they won't even get a fair trial. 

Ask yourselves this. Would you want to be a cop under these circumstances? Would anyone? Of course not! And that means a lot of good cops are going to quit and very few talented and professional people are going to want to get jobs as a police officer, especially in these Democrat run cities that have a personal hatred for police. 

This means that only people who are too dumb to realize this will try and get jobs as police. There may be a few brave holdouts but the fact of the matter is that the quality of police officers is going to go way down. Which means you will get more bad cops which will lead to more corruption, violence and general stupidity. Whatever complaints you have about police in America you have to understand that this conviction will just make things so very much worse. 

I am also disgusted that the worst people in America, Black Lives Matter and the Democrats, got their way here. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of criminal statistics and law knows that the narrative that blacks are being murdered by police by the thousands is a totally false narrative, to the point of being blood libel. It's a disgusting lie and one that should not be given any credence whatsoever. 

But the people that spread that lie? They won big today. They proved to America that if you don't do what they say they will utterly destroy your lives and take away one of the most basic civil rights, the right to a fair trial. And they are gloating about it. 

If there is any good news it's this. America's cities are less likely to be destroyed tonight and over the rest of the week. There may still be some small riots but I don't see those lasting very long. This is, of course, a temporary reprieve as sooner or later there is going to be another case of black person being killed and that will mean riots no matter how justified the death is. The riots won't be stopped until the ringleaders are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned and it's very clear that nobody in the government wants that. Sooner or later, and it's inevitable in a country of 300+ million people, someone will get killed and the riots will be back on...

Judge in the Derek Chauvin case says Congresswoman Maxine Waters comments on the trial could lead to an appeal.

 

Maxine Waters. 

The judge in the Derek Chauvin case criticized Congresswoman Maxine Waters for her comments on the trail saying that it could lead to an appeal. Fox News. The judge refused to call a mistrial but said that Waters comments were out of line. Waters said that rioters needed to stay in the street and get more confrontational if Chauvin was found not guilty. The judge did not think that the comments would effect the trial because they had been ordered not to watch the news. The trial of Chauvin, who is accused of causing the death of George Floyd, ended today. 

My Comment:

Utterly disgusting behavior from Maxine Waters, who should be expelled from Congress for the action and arrested for jury tampering. This was a clear attempt to influence the jury into convicting Derek Chauvin by threatening riots, destruction and violence if they did not give her the outcome she wants. Given the fact that BLM and Antifa have already murdered people and committed countless acts of vandalism, arson and violence, it's hard to see how things could ever get worse but that's what Waters wants. 

I don't buy the argument that the jurors will not hear about this news. Unbelievably they were not sequestered and though they were ordered to not watch the news it's very possible that they heard about this somehow. If they did than this trial will likely result in a mistrial, hung jury or a conviction based on fear instead of the facts of the case. Hell, even if the jury wanted to convict Chauvin based on the facts, the appearance of being influenced is grounds for appeals.

I also think it was a mistake to not change venues. The jurors in this case live in the area and understand that if they don't convict then their homes and jobs can be destroyed. They also know that their own lives are threatened. If they convict they could lose everything. 

I also think that Waters knows exactly what she is doing. She knows that America's cities were burned down last year. She also knows that riots are likely if Chauvin is not convicted. She is pouring fuel on a fire that is already raging and she wants things to get worse. 

I believe Waters is racist. She doesn't care about the facts of the case, she doesn't care if her narrative is wrong and she doesn't care if people get hurt. She is just mad that one of her people was "killed" by a white person and doesn't care what the consequences are. She wants revenge and wants Chauvin to suffer. It's not any different than a Klansman doing the same thing if he threatened the jurors on this trial but for the opposite outcome. 

As for the trial itself, I have been largely ignoring it. After seeing the evidence that George Floyd was high on Fentanyl and evidence that Chauvin was following departmental procedures I basically made up my mind. There might have been some evidence that I missed during the trial but at this point I find the entire trial to be a politically motivated witch hunt. Without reviewing all of the evidence I am not sure how I would rule but it seems unlikely that I would convict base on the merits of the case.

But even if I though Chauvin was guilty, I don't think I could convict due to the actions of Waters and others. I don't believe in witch hunts or convictions based on threats. Jury nullifications are a thing and it is something that is almost required when the government is acting like this. If Maxine Waters is acting as a congresswoman when she made these threats then the government is totally out of control. 

I don't know what the outcome will be but I think in almost all cases there will be rioting. I think the only way there isn't a riot is if Chauvin gets killed, as horrible as that is. If he's convicted on the lesser charges there will be riots. If he isn't convicted at all, there will be riots. And if there is a mistrial, there will be riots. And even if he is convicted on all charges? There will probably be riots. 

Because this was never about Chauvin or Floyd, it was about a group of racist idiots that have a false idea of the state of race relations in this country and want an excuse to destroy things. And once everything is destroyed they want to recreate America with a new racial hierarchy with Blacks like Maxine Waters at the top and everyone else at the bottom...  

Ontario retracts some Coronavirus restrictions after massive public outcry.

 

Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Public domain photo.

Ontario has retracted several severe Coronavirus restriction after a massive public outcry. Fox News. Many police departments outright refused to enforce the demands which would have forced them to confront anyone out in public and ticket anyone who didn't have a good reason to be outside. That requirement has been pulled but officers can still question people if they suspect that they may be involved in a group activity. Public health officials also criticized a ban on outdoor activities like golfing and visiting parks and playgrounds. Canada has not had much luck in fighting Coronavirus and the vaccine roll-out has been a disaster there. 

My Comment:

What a contrast there is in Canada compared to my home in Wisconsin. I went to the park a couple of times this weekend to go fishing and it was fine. Nobody was wearing masks and everyone was having fun outside, either fishing, playing on the playground equipment, jogging, or just out and enjoying the day. Nobody was concerned about the Coronavirus, nobody was wearing masks and it was like the pandemic wasn't even happening. 

It makes zero sense to to ban these kinds of outdoor activities. The risk of transmission are extremely low outside and it would be difficult for someone to catch it even without any precautions. And if people really were worried about catching the virus they could just wear a mask. 

Even more concerning is that golfing and playing in parks is a good way to keep in shape, or, at the very least, keep from putting on more weight. Since obesity is a major factor on whether or not you live through the virus or not, it makes zero sense to ban outdoor activities. Indeed, if you are going to mandate anything, mandate exercise. Make people walk for an hour a day and you would probably see fewer deaths from the virus. 

As for the policing plan it seemed like a horrible, tyrannical idea that would have put both citizens and police at risk. Random stops are dangerous in the first place and I don't know much about policing in Canada but I assume that police have to at least have a reason to pull someone over. I know in America police have to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed to pull you over. I am not sure if Canadians have similar protections but under this rule they did not. 

I think police realized that if they tried to enforce this rule even the Canadians would have told them no. And they would have either had to arrest a lot of innocent people or just not be able to enforce the ban. It's also possible that someone would be angry enough to fight and that could lead to either a cop or a citizen getting killed. 

Of course if Canada was on the ball they wouldn't have to have the discussion in the first place. Their vaccine rollout has been terrible when compared to the United States. Almost half of Americans are vaccinated and we are probably approaching herd immunity. Canada though? Only 15 percent, not anywhere near immunity. They just can't get it together and it is really damaging their country. 

White House acknowledges that the "Russian bounties" story was likely false.

 

Soldiers in Afghanistan. BBC/Getty.

The White House acknowledged that the "Russian bounties" story in the leadup to the 2020 election was based on sketchy intelligence. BBC. The story alleged that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan. Russia and the Taliban both denied the story and President Trump dismissed it as "fake news" and "not credible". However, both the media and the Biden campaign slammed Trump on the issue, accusing him of being weak on Russia. Now the White House has revealed that the story was based on intelligence that US spy chiefs rated with low to moderate confidence. The intelligence supposedly came from Afghani detainees. The confidence in the story is now so low that the Biden administration did not cite it for the new sanctions they put on the Russian government. 

My Comment:

Yet another story used to attack President Trump that turned out to be false. Not that anyone should have believed the story in the first place. I dismissed it out of hand when the story broke out last year as it did not make a lick of sense in the first place. 

Why not? Because nobody needed to pay the Taliban to attack US troops in the first place. They hate America and our troops and will attack them for free. They had no reason to demand money for killing Americans.

And the Russians? What would they gain from this scenario? The Taliban and other forces are already attacking Americans in Afghanistan, why pay them to do what they are already doing? And it makes zero sense for them to want to escalate tensions with the United States this way. We already had some close calls in Syria and there is no reason why Putin and Russia would want to make things worse. It was a nonsense story to begin with.  

So why did the media run with it? Because they thought it hurt President Trump's election chances. That's it. I am guessing they knew the story was false but ran with it anyways. If a layman like me can figure it out than the professional journalists could do so as well. But they wanted to push the "Trump is a Russian puppet" angle regardless of how untrue it is. 

Speaking of which, the entire idea that Trump was a Russian puppet was absurd on its' face. I had said for a long time that President Trump was not a pro-Russian president and it was one of the things I was critical about him with. I personally wanted to see much better relations with Russia and a withdrawal from our conflicts with them in Ukraine and Syria, but that didn't happen. To argue that he was somehow doing their bidding while blowing up Russian mercenaries in Syria and arming Ukrainian militias is absurd on its face. 

As for Biden himself, it seems like he is blinking on Russia. Putin outmaneuvered him in Ukraine and now he is admitting that a major anti-Russia story is mostly bunk. It's not a sign of strength that our ships got turned around before entering the Black Sea. Our relations with Russia are not good at all and seem to be getting worse. And Putin understands that Biden is a fundamentally weak president. 

I also think that Biden should be criticized for his actions in the campaign. By hyping this story he further damaged relations with Russia and that would have been a net negative no matter who won. Russia killing US troops is a casus belli for war and it's possible that if Trump had overcome the 2020 election, he may have had to respond to Russia. Even so, Biden hurt his own relations with Putin, who presumably doesn't appreciate being accused of signing bounties on the lives of US troops. 

Project Veritas and James O'Keefe will sue Twitter for defamation after being banned in the fallout of a report on CNN.

 

Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe. The Federalist. 

Project Veritas and James O'Keefe will sue Twitter for defamation after being banned from the platform during the fallout of a major report on CNN. The Federalist. Project Veritas had recently launched a multipart exposé detailing how CNN used propaganda against President Trump in an effort to interfere with the 2020 election. O'Keefe's account was banned for "using multiple accounts" which O'Keefe says is false. Twitter has not provided any evidence that O'Keefe used multiple accounts. 

Project Veritas's report on CNN can be seen below. 

My Comment:

I pretty much ignored the Project Veritas report before this. O'Keefe tends to overhype his reporting and in this case it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Of course CNN is biased and of course they tried to prevent President Trump winning his 2nd term. This isn't something that anyone with even the smallest amount of media experience didn't already know. The story was useful enough for people not really keyed into the controversy with CNN but it wasn't anything groundbreaking as far as I was concerned. 

But this story? This story is huge. Because it looks to all the world that CNN pressured Twitter to censor one of their main critics. Despite being an obvious story that everyone knew CNN did not want evidence of their maleficence out in the world, so I am guessing they asked Twitter to censor O'Keefe and they did. 

For their part Twitter may have been looking for a reason to get rid of O'Keefe anyways. His stories tend to trend and they always go against the prevailing media narrative. They might have banned him anyways but the timing of this makes me suspect CNN was involved. My guess is that Twitter would have been smart enough to ban him during a time period where he wasn't trending. 

So did O'Keefe make fake accounts? Right now it's a he said/she said situation with no evidence either way. The fact that he is suing for defamation makes me lean towards no. We have seen people get banned from Twitter for making fake accounts before and they certainly didn't sue because they were actually guilty of the charges against them. My guess is that O'Keefe didn't make any fake accounts and that Twitter is just lying. 

But if he did make the accounts? Then yeah, that's a violation of the terms of service and ban worthy. I don't like it but making fake accounts is against the rules and there is a reason to not allow it on Twitter. I don't think this is the case but if it is then the ban is more justified. 

Regardless, the tide of social media censorship is totally out of control. It's insane that every conservative voice is being silenced and that big tech has so blatantly taken sides. There is so much that you just aren't allowed to say anymore. It's not a sustainable state of affairs... 

 

Democrats introduce bill to expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats...

 

File photo of the Supreme Court. NBC News.

The Democrats have introduced a bill that would expand the Supreme Court from 9 justices to 13. NBC News. The court now has a slim 5-4 conservative majority with Chief Justice John Roberts being a conservative leaning swing vote. Democrats that support the move make the claim that they were robbed from a seat after the Senate did not allow a vote to replace Justice Scalia back in 2016. President Trump secured three justices during his term, all conservative. The bill is extremely unlikely to pass due to all Republicans and some Democrats opposing it. Biden has flip flopped on the issue saying he isn't a fan of expanding the court but also forming a commission to study the idea.

My Comment:

Again, this entire idea seems like a massive own-goal by the Democrats. The idea is unpopular and extremely divisive and is not going to pass. Republicans will be beyond furious if this somehow passes to the point where I would honestly expect an actual insurrection or civil war if it was done. And the Democrats? They will be furious when this doesn't pass. 

I also don't buy the argument for a second that the Democrats have anything to complain about. They would have done the same thing if they had the Senate when Scalia died and the GOP had the White House. And they have only themselves to blame for losing in 2016, putting up Hillary Clinton was a massive error and not forcing Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire is also on them. They basically have nothing to be upset at other than the fact that they screwed themselves over. 

Since the conservatives won the court fair and square (and I can't stress enough how slim that majority is, Roberts is a leftist now), the Democrats stacking the court with four more members would correctly be seen as a power grab. There is no reason to see it as anything else. Doing so would be a clear signal that the country is officially dead and there is no reason to stay together anymore. 

Thankfully, reason is likely to prevail. Senator Joe Manchin is already against the idea and since he is the swing vote in the Senate this bill has no chance of passing. And Manchin isn't the only one by far, any Senator or member of Congress who votes for this in a red state would be committing suicide, maybe literally. I don't think that the Democrats have the votes to pass this in either house. 

So why do this? It won't pass, it will anger both sides of the debate and it greatly increases the chances of civil unrest or violence. It will also be used as a rallying cry for the Republicans and it has a decent chance, along with all the other idiotic things the Democrats are doing now, of costing the Democrats both the house and the senate, possibly with a big enough margin to see Joe Biden impeached (and a slim chance of being removed from office). 

I think the reason is to further corrupt Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts is already dirty and it's clear that he cares way more about not angering the powers that be as opposed to actually deciding important cases. This bill is a threat to the integrity of the Supreme Court which Roberts seems to care about (at least in terms of size). With the threat don't expect Roberts to vote for anything controversial even though the other justices are chomping at the bit for it. 

Biden admin will withdraw troops from Afghanistan but will violate agreement with Taliban by delaying it until September 11th.

 

US Troops return to the United States last year. Politico/Getty.

Joe Biden is expected to announce that the United States will withdraw from Afghanistan but will violate an agreement with the Taliban to do so by May 1st. Politico. The new withdrawal date will be on September 11th, the 20 year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The news will almost certainly lead to attacks from the Taliban which have largely stopped since President Trump made the agreement with them. The Biden admin will continue to target al-Qaeda and ISIS in Afghanistan and may target the Taliban if they start attacking. Military commanders cited the difficulty of withdrawing troops and supplies from the country as the reason to delay the withdrawal. 

My Comment:

What a joke. We could pull these troops out today if we really wanted too. We might lose some of our supplies and cause some issues but we could still do it. And given how many billions of dollars we have wasted in Afghanistan what difference would a few more millions worth of equipment mean? 

And I also don't really believe that we will really do it. Biden always struck me as a warhawk and he has already failed at withdrawing from Afghanistan once. Hell, even President Trump did in his first term, canceling a war is really hard. And I don't even think that Biden wants to do so, he's just trying to placate his critics on the left. 

And the Taliban will have their say as well. They are not going to accept this later withdrawal date as it directly violates the deal they made with President Trump. That means they will likely step up attacks against US troops and the Afghan government. These attacks will be used to cancel the withdrawal, probably leading to years and years of warfare. 

I honestly think keeping our work with the Taliban is worth keeping to the schedule alone. Though America has never been that good at keeping our word, this is the kind of betrayal that people will remember. Why would any enemy make a good faith attempt at peace if we constantly go back on our word? We said we would leave on May 1st so that means we should leave. 

I also think that making the date the 20th anniversary of 9/11 is pointless political theater. We have no reason to wait that long and the date is arbitrary at best. And specifically waiting 20 years after the war started just seems like a middle finger to the American people. Plus it will distract from the 9/11 anniversary which is not helpful. 

As for the war itself, I think it should have ended a long time ago. Once al-Qaeda was defeated we no longer had any reason to stay there. Our goal was never to defeat the Taliban but we tried to do so and we failed. And then ISIS came to Afghanistan as well. We did not make the country any better and we killed a whole lot of people and for what? We didn't even take Afghanistan's mineral resources, we just let the country stagnate. 

If Biden is serious about ending the war in Afghanistan it will be a positive thing if he can pull it off. I have no faith in his ability to do so or even if he actually desires to do so. Indeed, I have thought for a long time that the war in Afghanistan will never end, or at least US involvement in the war. The powers that be want the war to continue and so it will. 

Riots in Minnesota break out after a police shooting that turns out to have been an accidental discharge.

 

Police stand during last nights riots in Brooklyn Center. AFP.

Riots have broken out in Minnesota after a police involved shooting that turned out to have been an accidental discharge. Yahoo News. A 20 year old man, Daunte Wright, with warrants out for his arrest was pulled over by police in Brooklyn Center, a Minneapolis suburb. Wright resisted arrest and jumped into his car when a female police officer fired her gun at him. The bodycam footage shows her yelling "Taser" and after shooting him she sound incredulous saying "Oh shit, I just shot him?" With the video evidence, police believe the shooting was accidental. The news about the shooting broke today but that did not stop riots from happening in Minnesota.

My Comment:

What a mess. It seems as though this is one of the cases where just about everyone screwed up. The police officer involved somehow managed to draw her service weapon instead of her taser, which is a huge mistake, but one that has happened in the past. Daunte Wright resisted arrest and had a warrant out for him, so he's no innocent victim either. And worst of all people rioted for no reason as this was obviously not an act of racism in any way shape or form. 

There have been other cases where police have shot someone because they didn't realize they had a gun instead of a taser. It's seems incredible to not be able to tell the difference between a taser and a gun but it happens. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug and it affects your judgement and this officer obviously made the wrong call. This is not an unprecedented incident unfortunately. 

I don't think there is any way to argue that this officer did this on purpose. Having watched the video it seems she is surprised as anyone else that she fired her gun. This was a tragic mistake, not an intentional homicide. And it's not entirely clear if Wright died from the bullet or from the car crash he was involved in after fleeing (though the autopsy should make that clear soon enough). 

There was no justification for riots though. There wouldn't have been a justification for riots if the police had drawn and quartered Daunte Wright. Rioting is never ok and is always just an excuse for looting and destruction. I have no sympathy for Black Lives Matter's arguments in this case, the incident was clearly not racist in any way. 

I also don't have much in the way of sympathy for Daunte Wright. Though the officer involved in the shooting screwed up and screwed up badly that doesn't excuse him fighting with the police and trying to flee. Had he simply cooperated he'd be alive in jail right now instead of being dead. I just can't feel any sympathy for a criminal who gets killed by the police, even in an unjust way. If you choose a lifestyle of crime chances are you will end up killed by someone so it's not like this was an unexpected outcome. 

What do I think should happen to the officer that shot Wright? At bare minimum she should be fired. I also think she should be charged with whatever Minnesota's equivalent of manslaughter or reckless homicide is. Though the incident was clearly a mistake it's not something that should be let go without some kind of punishment. That being said, she still deserves a day in court and given how often evidence pops up that changes the context of these cases I will reserve judgement on whether she should be convicted until later. 

I don't really think there is an argument for justification here. Firing a taser might have been justified but firing a gun was not. Wright was trying to flee which is a danger but he hadn't done anything that put anyone's life at risk. And he only drove off after he got shot, which seems almost reasonable at that point.  

I do think this incident exposes one of the actual problems with America's police forces. They are often underfunded and undertrained. It's clear that this officer needed more training with her weapons as I don't think this is a problem that a well trained officer would have faced. I also think that hiring standards in these big cities are too loose. Nobody wanted to work in the big cities even before Black Lives Matter showed up. Now it's hard to get anyone decent to work in big inner city police departments. Without knowing who this officer is it's only speculation, but it's also possible she wasn't really qualified for her job and was hired for the sake of "diversity". There are plenty of women cops who are good at their jobs and are worthy of being hired but this officer might not have been one of them.

This is why it was so frustrating to see "Defund the Police" trending yesterday on Twitter. Defunding the police is why this happened in the first place! Well trained, well paid and well screened cops almost never make mistakes like this and by cutting funding you are essentially ensuring that this kind of incident happens more often. Though that seems to be the goal of these racial fraudsters, they want racial division and they don't care if people die in order to get it. 

As for the riots I think they were inevitable. If it wasn't for this shooting it would have been from the Derek Chauvin trial, which seems likely to end in an acquittal. And even if that didn't set things off, sooner or later another criminal would be shot and the cycle would begin again. The problem is the news coverage of these events, racial hucksters like Benjamin Crump and the fact that the riots last year did not end with police and the national guard coming down on the rioters like the hand of God. 

It will be interesting to see how Joe Biden handles this. The general consensus is that blue state governors and mayors let the riots happen in 2020 to hurt President Donald Trump. In theory they should now crack down as it would hurt Biden if they didn't. But on the other hand the Democrats are almost completely unable to stand up to their African American supporters even when they are clearly in the wrong. As much as I despise Biden I do hope that he does crack down on these rioters as I have no desire to see America's cities burn yet again. 

 

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine are very high. Could war be possible?

 

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Reuters

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine are high after Russia moved troops to the border. Reuters. Russia may be concerned about the treatment of Russian speaking minorities in Ukraine. A member of Russia's military said that the country may be forced to defend the Russian speaking minorities.  There has also been an uptick in violence between Ukraine and the Donbass rebels. 

My Comment:

I think there is a real chance of the war in Ukraine heating up again this summer. Indeed, that's what a lot of people are saying and I have reason to believe it. Tensions are extremely high right now between Russia and Ukraine. 

I posted recently that some of this is a reaction to how weak the US president is right now. Putin understands that Joe Biden is barely sapient at this point in his senility and that he can push the United States around. He also had personal reasons to dislike Biden given the diplomatic insult he has given him. 

It goes beyond that though in terms of the United States. Russia is also furious with us for threatening their gas pipeline to Germany. That pipeline is almost done and Biden actually threatened Germany with sanctions, which put a lot of pressure on Russia. Given how critical natural gas is to Russia's economy it's no surprise they are saber rattling. 

But I think a lot of this falls on Ukraine and their president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky campaigned on finishing the war in Donbass and he has utterly failed to do so. It has cratered his approval rating and will likely destroy his chances at getting re-elected. 

And Ukraine was in fact discriminating against Russian speaking Ukrainians. They weren't allowed to speak their language and were treated terribly. Plus Ukraine has used actual Nazis in their fight against the break-away Donbass areas. The narrative that the Russians are big bullies and Ukraine is totally innocent is a lie. 

That being said, I don't think we should support either side in the conflict. Both sides deserve each other. We have very little interest in Ukraine and should not spend money on their defense. That being said, I have very little faith in Biden to keep us out of any conflict in Ukraine. Indeed, Biden has a very strong track record of making the absolute wrong choice. 

So what will a war look like? I am expecting that it will return to the low scale war we saw during the main days of the conflict. I'm not really expecting the Russians to invade like they did with Crimea even though I think the people of Donbass wouldn't mind that. Instead it will be hybrid war, with more covert support from the Russians instead of overt. And I am expecting it to start sooner rather than later...

Joe Biden signs executive order on expanding the Supreme Court...

 

Seal of the Supreme Court.

Joe Biden has signed an executive order that will form a commission to study expanding the Supreme Court. Politico. The move comes after Biden blasted the idea of stacking the court during the campaign trail, saying he was "not a fan". The 35 member commission will have 160 days to study both the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. Conservative justices currently have a 5-4 majority with Chief Justice Roberts being a swing vote. Critics, including Liberal justice Stephen Breyer, have come out to oppose the idea of expanding the court.

My Comment:

I think it goes without saying that I think expanding the court is a bad idea, and I say that even though President Trump probably could have done so during his first term. It's a very clear signal that bipartisanship is dead. It would also be seen as a naked power grab and could even lead to civil war if implemented. 

Should the Supreme Court be stacked or otherwise neutered it would be a very clear signal that the Democrats were no longer playing around. It would eliminate the strongest and most reliable of checks on their power and they would be able to to pretty much whatever they wanted with no recourse available except elections, and we all know what the problem is with that. With absolutely nothing to lose why wouldn't there be a war coming from this?

With that being said though, I have to wonder what Joe Biden is thinking here. This is a hugely controversial idea that will do nothing but rile up Republican voters before the 2022 election. And the resolution of this commission will come even closer to the election, keeping the issue in the back of voters minds when they go to the polls. 

I didn't think that Democrats had much of a chance of keeping control of the House or the Senate in the first place due to the rules of incumbency where the ruling power tends to lose seats during the midterms. But Biden and the Democrats are committing a lot of own-goals here. Pushing high controversy things like court packing and gun control are going to anger the hell out of Republicans but won't help with Democrats.

And why won't it help with Democrats? Because absolutely nothing will come of this. It's very clear that Biden does not have the votes to pack the court (or pass gun confiscation). Joe Manchin rightly realized that if the Democrats take over entirely, his head will be on the metaphorical or literal chopping block, so he his holding up legislation. And he's probably not the only senator that would not go along with a court packing scheme, and I don't know if it would even pass in the house.

I think the Biden regime just wants to be seen as doing something which probably is the worse thing they could do. Republicans are rightly threatened by his actions and that will motivate them to vote. But Democrats? They are going to be angered with the half measures and stupidity that Biden is doing here. In there eyes, why waste time with a commission, just have the Senate vote on it. When they realize that a commission is all that is going to happen they are going to be pissed and might even stay home on election day. 

Still though, I do worry what could happen in 2022. Though I continue to doubt that in a normal year the Democrats would lose and lose badly. But with our election system so badly compromised anything is possible and the Democrats could keep the House and Senate and even expand their control of it. If that happens then court packing is probably on the table and with it the threat of civil war. Especially if the 2022 election is as corrupt and non-transparent as the 2020 election was... 

Is Vladimir Putin reacting to Biden's "Killer" comments by deploying troops?

 

Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. Fox News.

Vladimir Putin may have reacted to Joe Biden recently calling him a killer by deploying troops. Fox News. Putin has been very active in saber rattling lately, with a major deployment of 28,000 troops to the border with Ukraine. He has also pulled stunts in the Artic, including using bombers to challenge US air defenses and filming their nuclear subs breaking through the ice. Russia is also developing new weapons, including hypersonic weapons which may lead to a new arms race. 

My Comment:

I am not sure if I agree with the analysis here. Though I think Biden's comments were and are colossally stupid I don't think that is why Russia has been more assertive. In short, Putin knows two things about Joe Biden and the Democrats. They are extremely weak right now and they utterly despise Russia.

Most of the weakness is from Biden himself. It's clear to everyone, especially the Russians, that Biden just isn't there any more. The man is senile and not capable of running the country. That's why I don't think that Putin actually took Biden's words personally, how could he? I doubt Biden even understood where he was, let alone what he was saying. 

This gives Putin a pretty huge advantage against America. I think he thinks he can push us into making bad moves, like wasting money on Ukraine, Syria and various other areas of foreign policy. I think he also understands that our spending is completely unsustainable, especially after our huge Coronavirus relief bills and the proposed infrastructure bill. Given the higher taxes, inflation and economic stagnation it's very possible that the Russians will use the same strategy Ronald Regan used against the Soviet Union. 

It's clear that an arms race is starting and not just with Russia. They have all kinds of new tech and weapons with hypersonic missiles being the biggest threat as they bypass our anti-nuclear defenses. But China too is investing in their military as well and we will have to spend a ton of money, that we don't have thanks to the Democrats, to keep up. 

And I also think that regardless of Joe Biden, Putin knows that the Democrats absolutely despise him and Russia. For the rank and file they still insanely blame Russia for the 2016 election loss despite almost no evidence of Russia doing so. For the elite though, they hate Russia simply because they are opposed to the west and would love to see the country fall into the kind of regime change wars we have seen in the Middle East and Ukraine. 

Still, I doubt that Biden's comments helped. I do know for a fact that Putin (and all of Russia) took Hillary Clinton's comments comparing Putin to Adolf Hitler. Given how many millions of Russians Hitler killed calling any Russian Hitler is essentially suicide. Only Clinton's position and power kept her alive after that. 

Biden's comments were not quite on that level but I doubt that Putin approved. I still think that he would have pressed America after the 2020 election. Our country is extremely weak right now and I think Putin wants to take advantage. Of course Biden's comments didn't help. My guess is that Putin would have taken advantage regardless but if Biden was actually interested in peace or a cooling of tensions it might have been possible. Not so much anymore. 

The sad thing is that we have zero reason to be opposed to Russia. Putin certainly has some problems, but he would be a major ally against China. The Soviet government is long dead and I don't see too much of a moral advantage over Russia now. Much of the criticism directed against Putin and Russia is just as true of the United States but pales in comparison to what China has done... It is a total shame that President Trump was not able to reset relations with Russia and that Biden has completely thrown away what little progress we have made. 

Joe Biden set to issue major and draconian executive orders on gun rights.

An AR pistol vs a Short Barreled Rifle.

Joe Biden is set to issue major and draconian executive orders on gun rights tomorrow. Fox News. One of the executive orders is to regulate so called "ghost guns" which are assembled from parts. He will also recommend "red flag" laws, that allow gun confiscation without conviction of any crime. Two other executive orders will track firearms and order investment into local community violence interventions. Most disturbing though is the attempt to regulate pistols under the National Firearms Act by changing the rules on pistol stabilizing braces. Biden will also recommend former ATF agent Dave Chipman, who was involved in the Waco prosecutions and is a gun control advocate, as the head of the ATF. 

EDIT: Biden's executive orders have been released.

My Comment:

I have already contacted my representatives about this. This is something that is extremely easy to do and I encourage all of my readers to send an e-mail or call their elected officials. You can find links to your elected officials using this government website.  Below I have posted what I sent to my elected officials (I skipped Joe Biden as I don't think he listens to anyone but feel free to contact him as well, just try not to say anything that can get you arrested).

Greetings. News has broken today that Joe Biden will announce several draconian gun control executive orders. Though the exact text have not been released I have been informed that the will try to ban AR pistols, demand red flag laws and regulate so called "ghost guns". Though all of these laws disturb me greatly and could lead to violence if they are enforced the effort to ban or regulate pistol braces under the National Firearms Act is extremely troubling. AR pistols with braces are among the most popular firearms in America and are owned by millions of gun owners. The executive order would presumably turn all of those millions of gun owners into felons overnight. And gun owners are extremely unlikely to cooperate with demands they register or surrender their firearms. I am asking you to publicly oppose Biden and his gun control actions and do everything in your power to fight these executive orders. 

As I said in the post the most disturbing among these is the attempt to ban pistol braces. Millions of gun owners own these and trying to ban them is a fools errand at best and a recipe for civil war at worst. If these pistols and/or braces are regulated as short barreled rifles the owners of those rifles could be charged with a felony with 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine per weapon. And any effort to actually confiscate these weapons would lead to Ruby Ridge or Waco situations where a lot of innocent people and police/federal agents die. 

The ghost gun regulation is a joke. Ghost guns don't really exist other than the fact that people can manufacture their own firearms. Parts kits exist but the lower receiver already counts as a firearm! So ghost guns don't exactly exist unless you are counting things like manufacturing your own lowers. And I don't see how anyone enforces that. 

Red flag laws are a joke too but fortunately they are not really something that Biden can effect at the federal level. That requires legislation and it's already clear that the Democrats do not have the votes for any new gun control laws. And in the states blue states already have these terrible laws and red states will never go for them. This executive order is mostly pointless. 

As for the rest of the executive orders, it's unclear what they are going to be. We don't have the text of these orders yet and won't until tomorrow. They mostly seem like they will be funding biased studies and pointless programs. I don't think they will do that much harm despite being extremely pointless. 

I don't know what happens next. I am assuming that the NRA and other gun rights groups will challenge the AR pistol brace ban. In theory they have a strong case as the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government can't ban commonly used firearms and pistol braces are extremely commonly used. But who knows what the courts will do? The Supreme Court has signaled that they might want to take on gun rights cases but they punted on the New York law case. I think they have the votes to overturn this order, even without John Roberts, but given how cowardly they have been on gun rights in the past few years it's a major concern.